Join our official discord server! Primwiki
- Updates might become slow here but that doesn’t mean this page will be abandoned. I just wanted to give this notice since I’m not as active here.
|
Work In Progress "This page isn't even complete yet, who cares?" - Nihilism Itapi is currently working on this page. Please do not interfere with their work. Instead, contact them to propose additional edits. |
Beliefs
Not to be confused with 
Fitzhughism which was a reactionary socialist ideology. Southern American Socialism advocates for a revolutionary-traditionalist society and takes inspiration from national syndicalism, revolutionary syndicalism, and elective monarchism. It agrees with Georges Valois about class struggle, and national class analysis as the logical development in scientific socialism. It also does agree with Valois and other national syndicalists critiques of fascism as it is a perversion of national syndicalism. It does agree with the concept of proletariat nations but in the context of how national syndicalism views it. It has a disdain for totalitarianism regardless of the ideology. It argues that syndicalism is the most organic and effective form of socialism due to it arguing that socialism must be decentralizally planned to achieve the goals of shifting the means of production to the workers. It agrees with Sorel’s myth of the proletarian strike, his views on liberal democracy, and his dislike for his dislike of certain types of idealism and Positivism.
Government
The government takes inspiration from ideas of industrial unionism to an extent, guild socialism, syndicalism, Hamiltonianism, and elective monarchism. The government is within a federal framework as well to prevent over centralization in government as it advocates for both a strong and lean government. The states would be transformed into a more syndicalist structure. Going from guilds, unions, syndicates, ect. The syndicates elect the federation/coperation which assembles as a council to elect the monarch as to fuse these systems. The monarch will still be crowned by the Church to create a revolutionary-traditionalist government. This system allows the poorest person to rise the rank to become the monarch. It does also agree with the Hamiltonian model that the monarch can serve for life on good terms as to have a way to oust a bad monarch.
It argues that the government should be able to legislate morality as it’s one of the responsibilities of the government and it views that if a government does not do that it is irresponsible. However it doesn’t not view it in a totalitarian manner. It means from local to national. It argues that different issues should be dealt with as locally as possible then working its way up because it’s just as irresponsible if the local government ignores its responsibilities.
America and Monarchy is Not a Contradiction
Context is crucial to better understanding this topic before debunking the arguments that claim this is an unrealistic ideology. Firstly this will discuss why America culturally isn’t simply republican in nature. Secondly this will go into the history and proposals of monarchist ideas. Thirdly this will compare and contrast the American executive to other republican executives. Lastly to debunk claims of it being outside of the American realities. To summarize this will be against the oversimplification of what America is culturally and modern America’s interpretation of this subject.
To start each separate nation of America has a differing view. America is a collection of multiple nations united together as one.For example the South in particular was settled by English Cavaliers and supported the Charles I against the Roundheads.[14] These particular settlers shaped a part of the Southern nation’s identity even as republicanism became more mainstream overtime the monarchical elements remained especially within symbolism. Even in recent history this influence remains of course it is vastly different than initially but it still is in part one of several cultural myths that in particular shaped this particular nation. Jefferson Davis gives an example that shows even then the influence on this nation (This is not a endorsement of him just giving a specific example). Davis said, “ Our enemies are a traditionless and a homeless race; from the time of Cromwell to the present moment they have been disturbers of the peace of the world.” This influence was carried over from the English Civil War. It just wasn’t settled in America. This rhetoric clearly demonstrates the differing views that each nation had. The Civil War in America eventually settled this centuries old dispute. However even after this the Cavalier influnces still remain its just as the nation amended over time that these conflicting views can co-exist as to forge a more unified American identity. Which eventually over time lessens Davis’ claim but in understanding this topic it is still important to understand the cultural context then and how it shaped now. This is just an overview of the South’s cultural view and suggest more naunce. Also it further demonstrates that monarchical influences are not anti-American but have been present in multiple forms. To suggest otherwise would consider the South “anti-American.” This would be rather odd and unserious as it misses this nuance.
The main reason for this oversimplification of America being culturally republican specificaly comes from the Jeffersonians and by extension the Puritans which make up a different nation within America. These influences come from the Roundheads the settled parts of America. So understanding shows the vastly different views. The 
Jeffersonians changed the meaning of the war as an ideological and against monarchy in general. Which was opposed to the 
federalist view. The federalist view didn’t see it as against monarchy in general rather for American self determination and only against the British monarchy. This changing view is also ties into how the Declaration of Independence was viewed as people’s opinions on the past changed. This just a simplification as this topic could go past this entire scope. The political struggle between the two first political parties the federalist and democratic-republican influenced how this was viewed. However by the end of the War of 1812 the Jeffersonian narrative eventually emerged as the victor and this is the source for the oversimplification that make people believe that American is simply culturally republican since its founding. Yes, history is decided by the victors as this is another reason why this nuance was eventually forgotten as the federalist party dissolved and fell out of the mainstream. However this doesn’t mean the ideas faded away.
Here’s a quote to start of before explaining some of the history and proposals of monarchist ideas and it is by Rufus King. He said,” In one of our conversations, and upon the formation of the constitution in the federal convention of 1787, he said some things to me which, I think ought to be remembered by future generations, to enable them to appreciate justly those founders of our government who were in favor of a stronger organization than was adopted. He said: "You young men who have been born since the Revolution, look with horror upon the name of a King, and upon all propositions for a strong government. It was not so with us. We were born the subjects of a King, and were accustomed to subscribe ourselves 'His Majesty's most faithful subjects;' and we began the quarrel which ended in the Revolution, not against the King, but against his parliament; and in making the new government many propositions were submitted which would not bear discussion; and ought not to be quoted against their authors, being offered for consideration, and to bring out opinions, and which, though behind the opinions of this day, were in advance of those of that day." — These things were said chiefly in relation to General Hamilton, who had submitted propositions stronger than those adopted, but nothing like those which party spirit attributed to him.”[15] This quote is rather important because it shows a rather overlooked topic in American history. It also embodies the federalist view that too those born after the American Revolution would seem very foreign. This further iterates the complexities between republicanism and monarchism.
Also some small context before presenting the propsals multiple decades prior Henry Saint John wrote “Letters On the Spirit of Patriotism: On the Idea of a Patriotic King: On the State of the Parties. To summarize points of these writtings he adavocatea for a monarch that unifies, does stuff for the common good, and is above political parties. He goes further into detail about how this looks like but the short summary should suffice. This ws the foundation for the American executive even if the weren’t exactly in favor of monarch. This wasn’t merely coincidental either but intended. This is why if the ideas sound very familiar to an American audience.
The proposal entertaining the notion of monarchy had existed even prior to the Constitutional Convention of 1787 as some American wanted the then Thirteen Colonies to have a new arrangement and became a British protectorate to not have to deal with the British parliament. Now the specific proposal entertained includinghaving a Prussian Prince become an American king prior to the convention. Then at the convention Hamilton’s model was practically a king but without the title. The Prussian Scheme as it is now call seriously proposed the idea of making Frederick The Great’s broth Prince Henry of Prussia as king. To give context Prussia and Britain didn’t have good relations and the American people really liked Prussia so this was offered him. He then declined due to him stating that the American people wouldn’t accept him and later responded if they were serious about it he suggested a French candidate citing American and France’s alliance. [16] Hamilton model to summarize was a very strong executive the served for life unless on good terms which is essential a type of monarch in some sense. It is basically a form of either 
mixed government or basically an 
elective monarchy. Hamilton’s model also proposed a lean and effective government as well. Hamilton proposed this as a counter to parliamentary democracy as he disliked and distruted politicans. He like other federalist would had more grievances with parliament more so than the king. His whole model security and stability first. [17] Even though these proposal were not implemented it still suggests that monarchy was still a viable and realistic option unlike what other people think and suggest that American is more than simply culturally republican even post-revolution.
The compromise that end the Constitutional Convention of 1787 still kept the monarchical character in the president. As the president is not like a figurehead compared to modern day republics or other liberal republics as well. This was intended by design to bring further national unity and if it weren’t for these influences America could have been like other republics at the time and failed. So ironically it is the monarchical character and symbolism that has made this republic last so long. Another key difference is between this model and the others than authority and character is that people in America actually elect the president separately than how other republics do where other representatives vote the president which would be more akin to the U.S. Speaker of the house. To summarize America’s unique views influnced it to become this way unlike other republics which gave it better strength.
Common objections against American monarchism are mostly shallow or misinformed. Some will state America’s always been a republic. The answer to that is governments can change and the government you know looks vastly different from how you think the founders would and these people would be call the compromise a presidential monarch and not a “real president” within unknowingly debunking themselves. Secondly the other objection is about the goals of the revolution being against the monarchy. The simple answer is that the revolution wasn’t clearly cut and they only know half of the story of America. Thirdly they claim American nonarchism as against the character of America’s. The answer to this objection is they are over generalizing America as it’s a collection of nation and each nation that makes up each part has had nuanced views on this. The last objection is some would say why support some random family to be in charge. The answer to this is to completely miss the concept of monarchism and it is not simply hereditary and the thd closet thing to American monarchy is elective and it ties to America’s values. Another thing to note is these same people follow random celebrities they don’t know and some if want to know what’s going on with the British royals which is a self defeating argument. The last answer to this objection is not about a random family but security, stability, and longevity of a system as if a system cannot survive that what good is the system.
After giving context and clarification helps understand what America is. It debunks the old oversimplified narrative of America. It notes how things weren’t so clear cut. Compares how America’s republic is nothing like others and has monarchical characteristics. Also how this unfolds a better understanding of America’s struggles for independence. Another thing is it ultimately proves the anti-parliamentarian attitudes shaped America despite opinions. With all this put into picture no monarchism is not anti-American nor will it ever be.
How Monarchy Can Be Realistic in America Today
Now with explaning the source to the oversimplified narrative and pushing against the claims of being “anti-American” or “un-American on the topic of monarchism provided provide. It will point out it will look like in design too. Also to clarify this is not an advocacy of past monarchies but rather one that understands present realities and pushes to the future. This will entail how it would look like as well. Another thing to mention is to debunk the broad stroke claims that monarchy is reactionary no matter what. It will also clarify monarchism doesn’t equate to feudalism or that is feudalizing in nature. To summarize, this is a proposal for a 
revolutionary monarchy based on current realities, not idealization of past modes, and methods.
Firstly many Americans are simply unaware how little changes could realistically result in the presidency being presented as an elective monarchy. Hypothetically if the term limits on the president were removed and great authority was included you already have a type of elective monarchy in nature. This points out the little change even without the title king as in an elective monarchy that doesn’t necessarily require the title king. Monarchy doesn’t result in an aristocracy as evident in other societies throughout history. This doesn’t diminish popular sovereignty either as the government still is bound by the people. This is not unrealistic it just that many people are unaware of the foundations of many institutions.
The elective monarchy shall be framed in a way the reflects the current America not the old. America faces problems of class, identity, domination of bureaucracy, a self serving congress that only cares about their own interests, a duopoly of the two party system. This elective monarchy will be a unifying figure above the two party system entirely challenging this. The executive will be reframed to properly put congress in check and prevent the executive being a puppet of congress. The executive and others shall not own any property themselves as they are to serve the interests of the proletariat and nation refusal to abide by this results in an automatic dismissal. The reason is to prevent interest that don’t represent the proletariat and to reinforce the government is supposed to help the people not be over it. This framework clearly puts a face instead of faceless bureaucrats. Have a unifying figure also foster national unity.
Monarchy simply doesn’t exist within a feudalistic framework or feudalizez society. The reason is monarchy has existed before feudalism. Feudalism specifically arose due to the harsh and unpredictable outcomes of the medieval world not because monarchy existed. To state otherwise is to mischaracterize it or misunderstand the historical conditions. Monarchism existed outside of feudalism as well during the response to the growing capitalist class and enlightened despots intially filled the vacuum that was caused by the abolition of feudalism in certain countries. They lost out due to the bourgeois control. The next stage resulted in the monarchy being limited to the bourgeois because they wanted to control the outcome. This is further evident by how hereditary monarchy functions in reality because its only considered hereditary because the bourgeois say so. For example in the United Kingdom the line of succession is approved by the parliament and any changes have to be further approved by parliament and the monarchy has very little say other than suggesting possible alternatives.
This observation points out how weaky monarchy has become under capitalism and not that it strengthened it as some claim. In other countries the bourgeois themselves overthrew the monarchy because they saw it not worthwhile to keep them in power. These revolutions were not of the people but rather the ruling class some included sympathetic nobility. The explanation is due to the curtailing of the nobility after the slow death of feudalism and transitioning into capitalism and as the nation started to become more unified so the aristocracy had a stake in seeing this undone and a return to the old status-quo. The one who was actually feudalizing society was aristocracy because of their own interests. The new capitalist class that arose then sided with the aristocracy until it wasn’t profitable. So ultimately the bourgeois threw both aristocracy and nobility to the side. Those that keep it only see it for something to profit from
With this context provided if a monarchy is framed in a push against the bourgeois and remaining aristocracy left it can be worked into a revolutionary framework. This is not nonsensical because if positioned as a unifying figure for and by the proletariat it will be a tool against the bourgeois and free it from their clutches. Thus if monarchy placated nobility if given new life it can be a tool to crush the bourgeois. This again isn’t silly but understand how historical conditions played into both.
This proposal isn’t a contradiction to syndicalism in any shape or form either. The reason is syndicalism puts its union goals above structure. If any government supresses union activities and strike it is heavily opposed regardless of its structure. So a potential monarchy in this framework is actually pretty consistent within syndicalism. This pragmatism on governance makes it better to keep to others goals without diluting it. Syndicalism view governance as tools rather than ends and this clarification explains why this seeming contradiction isn’t one to begin with.
Economics
Southern American Socialism supports an authentic national syndicalist model and not one that advocates for corporatism. It supports creating more local planners due to them being able to better understand local communities interest than the national planners do. However this model doesn’t undermine the national planners it puts more accountability on the local planners to handle problems to the best of their ability before sending the issue up the ladder. It is also is skeptical of centrally planned economics.
Southern America Socialism supports a single payer tax healthcare system because it believes people shouldn’t have to worry about medical expenses or have the cost reduced for those that pay into the system. This will be in a syndicalist and local prioritized manner. It also supports expanding public education in a more sustainable manner too. Another thing he supports is economic nationalism due to the over reliance on outsourcing. It argues fair trade is better than free trade too. He also finds it absurd to import a good his country has for a lower quality good of the same type from another country.
Creating an Organic Socialism
Socialism should develop organically and follow in the context of the nation and the includes incorporating the traditions of said nation. The Sorelian myth will be emphasized into this as well. It views both syndicalism and guild socialism as vital to the idea of an organic socialism. If socialism is to be truly scientific it should also be subjected to the truth which encompasses Christianity specifically Catholicism. It doesn’t like for example how some Christians socialist make Christianity subject to socialism instead of the inverse.
A Decentralized Planned Economy Is Necessary for Socialism
Socialism starts at the workshop floor. Taking this into consideration socialism by design needs to have a decentralized planned economy due to its emphasis on the working class and the community at large. Otherwise it becomes the same problem that capitalism causes thus eventually creating the borderline totalitarian oversight of people’s way of life. It also becomes similar to capitalism as treating people as numbers if not decentralized. The different distinction between capitalism and state socialism is that instead of seeing people as potential profit it sees them as potential replacements for those who don’t live up to the system’s standards. State socialism isn’t real socialism because it doesn’t benefit the community and doesn’t fulfill the basic requirements of socialism which is to shift the means of production to the workers. Also people must be treated as people instead of numbers and their labor must be recognized and should be adequately compensated for in a fashion that doesn’t enslave the laborer. Socialism goal should be the community not this utopian ideal that some describe. The local planners know how to accommodate for their people better than the national planner could ever due to the local planners knowing the locality better. Each has a part to play as a greater whole. The local planners are just as responsible if not more than the national planners. So socialists realistically should consider this when implementing it.
Criticques of other variants of socialism and “socialism”
(WIP)
To start off this will be discussing 
utopian socialism and it’s implications. Some get this and 
communism mixed up. While both are bad Utopian socialism is far worse due to the fact its main aims are an idealistic utopia that won’t be feasible and they don’t analytically think about how to achieve their ideas and. While were on the topic of Utopianism I would like to mention despite 
Marx’s doubious claims 
Proudhonian thought is not a variant of Utopian socialism due to it actually coining the term scientific socialism before Marx even used it. Some utopian socialist are either simply very primitive socialists or naive socialists who think vaguely egalitarian ideas equals socialism. Utopian socialism isn’t as much of a thing as it used to be but its influences are more inherent in other variants of socialism.
The next one is on the agrarian socialists. My main criticism of it is due to socialism being a industrial movement of the proletarian and not the peasant farmer. However peasants farmers and their struggles are important but it’s not the focus point of socialism. Agrarian socialism realistically in my opinion cannot compete with the full brunt of capitalism and it ends up creating a system that reduces production, proficiency, and living standards for the rural peasant. Also in today’s age most farmers have transitioned into proletariats in as industrialized farming equipment has changed the farmer in developed nations. So ultimately agrarian socialism in its orginal conception is outdated and impractical for socialism. My other concern is the semi-feudal type of socialism that might arise through agrarian socialism. This is why I tend to agree with others saying that 3rd World countries at the moment cannot reach socialism yet. However it isn’t due to me viewing them as lesser rather that the industrialization must be in the context of the nations of the various 3rd World countries first in order to start the process for socialism.
Reactionary socialism is a broad term it includes Fitzhughism, fedual socialism, certain types of utopian socialits, and “German national socialism” just to name a few. It is in an extreme opposition to scientific socialism in its form. Reactionary socialism has the same underlying problems as utopian socialism and reactionaryism but up scaled. Fitzhughism holds that socialism must incorporate slavery to achieve and this would be an abomination if put into practice and really is just the old slave bourgeoisie using its power to keep the proletariat down. Fedual socialism is less extreme than Fitzhughism but it’s problem is basically using socialism to return to fedualism and it will not be able to fight against capitalist. German “naional socialism” is not about the proletariat but rather putting the bourgeoisie as the master of the proletariat according to statements by various nazis. It’s economic policies were disastrous and mainly built upon war. [18] [19] The racial occultism, blood and soil type of idea puts others at odds with each other and it doesn’t unify the nation but it divides others due to what it deems as “Aryan.” It also does this to keep a tight grip on the population by the bourgeoisie. To summarize German “ national socialism” it is a vile ideology built on occultism, racialism, and anti-Westernism. German “national socialists” actually hate the West and rather look towards Eastern civilization mainly Eastern occultism. Their goal was to make a occultist religion on race. Its “Christianity” was merely a place holder. It is not at all like fascism [20]
State socialism in every variation due to it not achieving socialism’s goals which is that the means of production belong to the workers isn’t good. Under state socialism that means of production belong to the bureaucracy. Also it ends up treating people as numbers. It eventually causes a bloated bureaucracy and stagnation because of how it prioritizes. It doesn’t make things better for the working class period. It’s idea of class harmony is also a facade.
Anarchism takes the necessary decentralization for socialism to extreme. Yes socialism should get rid of uncessary parts of the state but not state in its entirety. Anarchism also isn’t practical either way because it basically ends up in barbarism and since its basically every man for themselves there is nothing stop anyone from doing as they please. Also anarchism in practice has shown to reject its own ideas for survival. Anarchism is impractical no matter how you try to make it work. Also it breeds is barbarism and chaos.
Marxism-Leninism has some things right like the vanguard party idea, using elections as a means, and understanding national conditions. However it doesn’t really grasp class analysis on a national level since it’s still international but the only difference is it understands that there are necessary steps. What it gets wrong is the socialist commodity production. This ideas was an uncessary development within socialism due to contradiction previous statements. Another flaw is it’s bloated bureaucracy which leads to inefficiency. Also it’s centralized planned economics were a failure. It never got to the socialist phase but rather a state capitalist phase and if it did reach socialism it wasn’t ideal (state socialism). Stalin’s collectivization was a failure and the right faction of the Soviet Union during that time was correct to point out this massive failure. Stalin’s purges did nothing but make the bureaucracy problem worse. He even made things worse for the proletariat. [21]. After Stalin the Stalinist bureaucracy that was complacent prevented any meaningful changes to actual help the proletariat and Stalin’s successors weren’t that great either. Other ML states suffered economic difficulties but at a large expense. For example Hoxha’s Albania was economically devastated and it’s policies are one of several factors as to why it’s in the shape it is. [22]. So overall Marxism-Leninism really didn’t live to socialist ideals. There is a reason why it lost against the liberal order. Despite it being against liberalism doesn’t make it better. Its fell so back behind due to its political and economic incompetency throughout its existence in power. It ultimately was outdone. Marxism-Leninism is ultimately a warning of what happens with centralized planned economics, a bloated bureaucracy system, poor political decisions, and poor economic decisions led to if not dealt with.
Now onto fascism. Despite what people may think about fascism it is not right-wing. Fascism is in fact a left-wing ideology. Fascism is a variant of a somewhat semi-scientific socialism at best and at its worst a variant of bourgeois socialism. It misapplies 
national syndicalism due to creating what I’d call a crude version of national syndicalism. Why due to it mainly inverting a purely national syndicalist economic structure. Also due to political opportunism and other reasons it works with the bourgeoisie under false assumptions because of its philosophical foundations (All are subjected to will of the state by any means). The bourgeoisie is one result of many that leads to their downfall. Also it’s Jacobin like methods use the state way beyond its responsibilities. Philosophically it is basically in a way a type of humanism due to its philosophical founder being 
Gentile. A flaw of one of its metaphysical presumptions is that human and state have no distinction and this actually leads to worship of the state in a very Jacobin manner which is their aim but this aim is its own undoing. Also it goes against its organic state principles by contradicting itself do to inorganically unifying the people within the nation. Fascism isn’t capitalism in decay like ignorant people state but rather it is the results of an extreme rationalist type of socialism and ultimately leads it to passivity due to its Hegelianism and humanism.
Blanquism is a bourgeois socialist ideology that existed around the time of Marx and its influence eventually slowly creeped into proper socialist circles. Marx, Sorel and others heavily criticized it due to it rejecting a spontaneous mass worker movements and instead using Jacobin like methods of a secret elite. Lenin himself was actually acused of this btw but in my opinion it was mainly his enemies exaggerating his vanguard and misunderstanding it. However the USSR post Lenin and other socialist countries countries could be considered adjacent to this but it would have to be considered by each respective nation as to properly understand if it truly is blanquist or not. My main problem is that it can be used against socialism and is in reality an illusion of actual progress towards socialism. Sorel one of the great influentical socialist writers made sure to emphasize how dangerous blanquism can be and in my opinion socialists regardless of their school of thought should consider his warning as it undermines the socialist movement as a whole.
Guild Socialism is a better variant of socialism compared to others discussed here however it does have flaws. To call it bourgeoisie is to misunderstand it because it has proletariat elements very much imbedded in it as it has some syndicalist factions. Also it’s social corporatist position is only good in so far that this corporatism makes this unity embody class struggle to its very core. Guild socialism is not reactionary either despite it taking inspiration from the guilds of old. Guild socialism is correct on wages, prices, ans other economic matters. What it gets wrong is it’s sympathy to reformism but not all of them were really reformists so this is pretty nuanced in areas. Some guild socialism in areas were more or less precursors to different types of syndicalism. Guild socialism needs to rely on syndicalism nowadays because the conditions that made guild socialism plausible no longer exist and so it should instead take refuge within aspects of syndicalism otherwise it won’t amount to much.
Markets As A Means And Not An End
Markets aren’t a permanent solution to the problems caused by capitalism in a very primitive form they could be argued to be necessary to achieve a more sustainable long term socialism. For example 
economically mutualism is this short term solution but should not be the long term. Mutualist economic structures should only be used to further develop it not exist on its own. The amount of time this in a specific area various in different factors These factors include but are not limited to industrial development, economic development, and various standards of living measures. Southern American Socialism advocates for a more mutualist organization in underdeveloped areas because it wants these areas to establish a better industry based off of quality and not quantity and it suggests that underdeveloped areas use this longer due to its lack of proper industry. While it suggests that more industrialized regions last in this phase shorter compared to the underdeveloped regions. Eventually markets as we know them will be completely dissolved and obsolete once socialism takes over in its post-primitive form.
Abolishing Commodity Production
Once post-primitive socialism occurs and a more developed socialism arises commodity production becomes abolished and a syndicalist structure will take over as the profit base system will be outdated at this point. This creating a non profit based society bounded together by unions, syndicates, ect all for the sake of helping each other in their respective communities rather for the sake of profit. However this doesn’t mean automatic equality as some people would suggest. Struggle will continue and human nature will still be flaw it’s just profit in this society will no longer be the main factor anymore and other factors will arise.
The Issues of Modern Property and How To Fix It
Before going into the solution of fixing property the most be some further context in as to not cause confusion. Firstly there is a difference between personal property and private property. Personal property includes things such as your house, your personal items, etc. Private property includes things like land, factories, ect. Also prior to modern property it was very different before the rise of capitalism as well. Private Property was also more community oriented as is evident throughout most of human history. Also another thing to note private property is not absolute either.
Now onto how modern property is and how its used. Modern property is used in a way that threatens the value of people by corporations and other entities based on the pursuit of profit. For example in some areas there are pseudo monopolies by corporations that prioritize it over the community resulting in the community being over reliant on it to survive this putting tight grip on it. Also types of bourgeoisie buy out land and do nothing with it which further escalates the problem further. Another thing in more recent times things are made worse due to the renter society mentality where the bourgeoisie makes sure you own nothing and that everything even outside of private property is just a simple contract agreement.
In the past their were different ideas and solutions that could have lessed the problem or avoided some issues of modern property. For example had distributism been implemented earlier it would have redistributed property a lot better and be a buffer during that period of rampant capitalism growth. However we no longer live in that specific period as distributists solutions are for the most part outdated. Since we cannot go back to the past and use what worked in the past we must find a new solution to the issues of modern property.
The solution is to abolish how modern property is and over a period of time make private property more communal oriented as to build better solidarity amongs communities and radically change it. The community owns the land and the factories. However individuals still own their personal property and the mode of private property will have to shift to adequately triumph over capitalism. The Church will still be able to maintain its property and the state cannot nationalize their land. Another thing is that a parish communities would be better suited to manage Church land than the government.This syndicalist shift should not harm religion in any form whatsoever. There is a possibility for private property in essence to exist within this model however it would look vastly different from the capitalist model and this is simply a speculation as a developed socialism has not been implemented at this point.
Culture
Southern American Socialism holds tradition as very important to the development of socialism and as an importantnce to the nation and people. It argues that there should be more of revolutionary approach against the status-quo that wants to kill tradition. It views that traditionalists nowadays are more revolutionary than the so called modern revolutionaries because they culturally are similar to the status-quo. It sees using more revolutionary-traditionalist methods making a more feasible socialist society. It views liberal progressivism as nothing but a decadent bourgeoisie ideology. Since it holds Sorelian positions the nation myth holds great importance. The myth brings people together in the revolution and in it’s opinion this dynamic to socialism makes it whole. It views Sorelianism as adding the final touches and fully polishing socialism.
Southern American Socialism is opposed to modernist and post modernist views of society. It views that these two are vile ideologies and that these two are slowly killing civilization. It likes more traditional and organic views of society and sees Sorel’s variant of syndicalism as a more organic approach by incoprating traditional aspects into its more revolutionary framework.
Southern American Socialism holds a synthesis of revolutionary and traditional ideas thus making revolutionary-traditionalism. It sees reacrionaryism as missing the point of conserving society and recognizes that not everything of the enlightenment was bad. It believes that some variations of nationalism are good and some developments are good but he still is skeptical about other elements of the enlightenment. It holds the position that spontaneous reactionaryism will inevitably collapse in on itself and doesn’t really like the rose tented types of reactionaries that don’t understand how society functioned before the enlightenment. It still is ultimately skeptical about reactionaryism
It is pro-life without exception and views that life is a very precious things. It holds the position that the society should have harsh policies to prevent abortion as a consideration.
Even though it agrees with socialism it still thinks the Church is essential to society and respects what the Church has done. It is not opposed to the Church like other socalists are. It still thinks the executive should be legitimized by the Church as well.
The Nations of America and American Culture Indivisible 
It understands that 
America is actually made up of multiple nations united as one. It sees this as one of America’s strengths. It believes that every culture in America should be persevered and respected. It believes in the perseverance of other 
local dialects and strongly supports 
federalism because of this. It also believes in persevering 
native cultures too because they’re just as America as the rest of America. It also advocates recognizing all the native nations in America. It also suggests when the syndicates are implemented they should reflect the various local communities throughout America too.
It also believes that America is stronger together than divided and he believes that the status quo wants the various different parts of America fighting against each other and to prevent them from realizing its more of a class issue in America. It also believes the status quo wants to keep the class issue out of the minds of people on purpose to keep themselves in power and to prevent the full strength of those against them.
Catholicism and its Place in America
Despite America having a strong Protestant heritage it also has a strong Catholic heritage and those who argue otherwise don’t understand American history as they think they do. The Catholic heritage of America starts with Maryland as it was founded as a Catholic colony. Also a lot of other parts of America have Catholic heritage. It holds the position that the strong anti-Catholic rhetoric that has existed and in small parts today in American society is actually un-American because it disrepcts a vital aspect of the nations that make up America that have a Catholic heritage. It also views that negative rhetoric as a way to weaken American unity.
Denominationism 
It upholds a position closer to the classical ideas of what freedom of religion meant in the United States which was more closer to freedom of denomination rather than the more secular idea that Americans think today. It sees America as a Christian nation. It however does extend some religious toleration to some other religions but unlike secularism it doesn’t include the toleration to various cults. It also supports protecting the historical Christian heritage of America. It does believe that people have the right to be right or wrong but ultimately wants those in America to find the fullness of the truth which is Catholicism.
A Revolutionary-Traditional Society
Its revolutionary views aren’t one from below which disregard family, religion, and traditional values. Its revolutionary ideas are one from above which aims to counter act against modernism/post modernism, capitalism, hyper individualism, and all those who oppose traditional values. The society will aimed at correcting the errors of modernity society ultimately. Society must move forward in hand with the Church.
Against the Hegemony of the Bourgeoisie
To take a page from Gramsci we must gain a better understanding of culture to overcome cultural hegemony of the ruling class. The key to this is intransigence within the institutions once the institution have been taken over. The intransigence is not from a snobbish or bigoted outlook but rather one the doesn’t lose the meaning of the movement within socialism. This is to counter bourgeoisie socialism as well as they are within the bourgeoisie cultural and political sphere because they gave up aspects of their movement for bourgeoisie legitimacy. So instead this should be rejected to prevent the fraction of the mass movement which includes all sorts of people regardless of religion, race, gender, sexuality, ect. To paraphrase Connolly he states regardless of the identity socialism is human and the movement should not be fractured based of what is considered identity politics should be left to curb and tactics should be used against the distractions of the bourgeoisie to weaken their cultural hegemony. This interpretation ties back into the Sorelian myth which encapsulates the struggle against the bourgeoisie not merely political but culturally as these two are intertwined. The traditionalism as meantioned in sections prior is not a reactionary one but rather one that moves with us and this is another example of the Sorelian myth because it unites the movement together against the bourgeoisie.
Christian Mysticism and 
The Myth of the Proletarian Strike
Eventhough these two have completely different outcomes they share a same end goal which is something above themselves that transcends culture and reason. The Christian Mystic wants the closer union to God that transcends reason itself as divine revelation is more powerful and insightful than mere human rationale. While the socialist who makes a myth of the general strike crafts a unifying unwavering movement above themselves and pushes regardless if the revolution succeeds or fails because their movement transcends reason as well.
The common shared goal between the two is transcending above reasoning and these two can actually learn something from each other despite what people think. They can both learn ways for unwavering irrational commitment to something more grand than themselves. This irrational behavior is not against logic or reasoning but rather too much reliance on rationalism and each has their own explanation as to why they act as they do.
There is one thing that is not a myth but a reality of the general strike is that this movement is something striving above mere action and risking everything for a noble, just, virtuous, and ethical type of governance against tyranny. It does point to something more than just the self or collective as well. This is not idealistic meandering because this myth is more than idealism or even materialism because it is neither one of the two due to actions. Its action is the driving force that goes beyond simple class analysis and is the essence of class struggle. Without action there is no class struggle only potential. Which other socialist agree with it but those who embrace the myth of the general strike go beyond that is the very myth itself is the embodiment of class struggle not just in words alone.
Socialism needs a unying myth to bring all peoples together because without it there’s a limit to what it can accomplish. This is why socialism not only needs to remove the abstraction of the mind as in idealism but it needs to remove materialism from itself as well. Some Marxist will object and say historical materialism isn’t like crude materialism and it can in part be a good explain for the revolution. However they’re partially correct because historical materialism has a limit to the whys and hows but it doesn’t explain the action in itself which is why it is good insofar in its understanding. Material conditions can only go so far in explaining a revolution but action do much more than anything an individual can even comprehend. This ties back into the why as to the reason these socialist what something makes the movement transcend mere human reasoning. The idealistic notion is also partially correct because it tries to make an abstraction of a particular thing. What it fails to understand is that you cannot fully abstract what it will be in reality and it will only be confined to the imagination. This is why action is the emphasized as it is real and the act is far more effective than just merely a idealist or materialist explanation because action is and not a how or what it just does. So there’s not contention between the realist approach that exists within it.
Now back to the Christian Mysticism part. The Christian Mystic push more than just the intellectual Christian. However there’s nothing wrong with the intellectual Christian but intelligence only goes so far. Yes some Christians who aren’t mystic realize this too. The difference is the mystic pushes and lives this out and wants a closer connection even if they don’t fully understand the why or how. They simply act and that is what in their opinion is what people long for ultimately for something great than them.
These two long for something above themselves as stated prior just different means. Neither should oppose each other but rather better understand each other in the shared goals to merely act and to have an end goal to transcend cultural and reason. This is why in Southern America Socialism’s opinion another reason Sorel has respect for early Christians and doesn’t reject their insight because he saw this shared goal. However he might have not been so inclined on everything but nonetheless it is still important to understand the myth of the general strike. Without understanding these connections it makes it seem like the myth came out of nowhere and is idealistic but in reality the myth has always been in us the entire time which is the act to do.
Socialism and environmentalism
The fact that socialism is primarily an industrial movement does not mean the environment should be ignored. Various socialists in the past had either ignored this or did very little to improve things. To change things like other socialists suggest the exploitation of the environment should be vastly considered because if not this would continue the capitalist exploitation on the environment and said exploitation would directly effect everyone in society.
However just because the environment should be considered doesn’t not mean worse conditions to only benefit the environment as some people would suggest. It should rather take a wholistic approach the benefits both people and the environment. To go against bourgeoisie exploitation of the environment the environment not profit should be considered when building house, infrastructure, ect. The industrial mode should not take over the environment but complement it.
Diplomacy
It is neither East nor West diplomatically because it puts American interests first into diplomacy. Its diplomatic thinking is closer to the Non-Aligned Movement and thinks America should be more neutral in diplomacy. It also doesn’t really like the old Cold War mentality of the U.S and thinks that America is too tangled up internationally and that’s why it’s Non-Interventionist. It also agrees with George Washington’s statments of not getting too tangeld up in the affairs of other countries. Even though it’s mostly non-interventionist it does believe in necessary circumstances America should be involved more. For example in Palestine and for other humanitarian issues. Even to overthrow foreign governments in the extreme cases but however overthrowning foreign governments shouldn’t be the norm. It is Anti-NATO because it belives that NATO is outdated and has served its purpose and it believes that America should make a new alliance and even rethink its allies because there are a lot of so called “trusted allies” of America who don’t do anything for America or only just benefit off of America. It thinks some of Americas allies are just simply leaching off of America. Southern American Socialism belives in closer relationship with its neighbors. It is also heavily Euroskeptic and thinks the EU is nothing more than a globalist, liberal, and capitalist project to errode the sovereignty of Europe. It holds the position that it’s not about unity in Europe but for a way for the status quo to have a harder grip on European politics and to make Europe passive to the status quo.
Pan Nationalism and the Canadian Question
It is 
pan nationalist and suggests that America and Canada due to their shared culture, history, and values should be united as one country. How this would happen is gradually over time through diplomacy rather than war. It would suggest different agreements that would eventually form a political union between the countries. It believes they’d both benefit from this. Even though its a pan-nationalist it wouldn’t want to erase the unique cultures in Canada because it views them just as important as the other cultures in America as some people groups in America orignate in Canada like the Acadians who are the ancestors of the Cajun peoples for example. It believes that what has prevented this from happening for a long time is the political elite, their bourgeoisie, and Canada’s anti-Americanism to give them some kind of justification for not being a part of America. It argues this was the real reason for this. Since this sentiment is decreasing it thinks they’d both benefit from this. It can also be a way for them to become united as one. Also the various provinces would be redrawn to fit alongside local and cultural lines.
A Confederation of the Americas
(WIP) Southern American Socialism proposes a confederation of sorts between Latin American. This confederation is not to diminish the sovereignty of these individual countries within Latin America rather for cooperation. The confederational body will serve as a mediator as to fix borders and to prevent instability in the Americas. Each nation has representation and and each member can vote on various different things pertaining to cooperation. The body does have specific authority but since this a confederal members have more authority than the head body so it priorities locality (think of a Swiss type model). However there is an exception if the confederation cannot agree in certain issues such as borders the confederal judiciary shall decide on the matter and disagreeing members shall take the matter to court to sort things out instead of waging war against each other. To not make one member state above each other a new city will be carved out of one of the member states and this new city will be the capital of the confederation and it will be defacto independent however it will be given permanent observer status as this will be the place to convene matters pertaining to the confederation.
Anti Imperialism
It is against imperialism due to it taking the negatives of nation building and of empire. Also it disproportionately affects the native population and other people within the nation. It also critques the European Union for being a imperialist project in the worst way possible due to economic reasons and due to this it believes that the EU in reality is a French or German project for dominance and not one of real European unity. It also criticizes China as an imperialist power and he doesn’t like the treatment of its own people and their centralized approach. It criticizes China’s economic imperialism in Africa as well due to them taking advantage of poorer African countries.
On Civilizationalism and Against Anti-Western Civilization
(WIP) South American Social views just as nationalism in the Western sense as forward thinking it suggests a similar concept within civilization. Why he views that is due to nation being integral to civilization. It suggests diplomatically that America should view how does this also affect the advancement of civilization. So he suggested that the greater cooperation should lead to civilizational unity in not just North America but also South America. Even though it dislikes the modern West it still would support a strong Western force. It mainly dislikes the modern Western due to it wasting its potential and chosing the worst options. It advocates for a renewed West that fixed the wrongs. It heavily dislikes anti-Western civilization forces. It suggests that an anti-Western Civilizational America makes zero sense due to America being massively influenced by the West and built by it.
The New Western Block
(WIP) This is a diplomatic proposal to build a block against neoliberalism. It will focus on cooperation rather than promoting globalism. Trade will be framed in a way that takes more national sovereignty in consideration. The sovereignty and economic autonomy will be maintained and a core principle of this block. For example if a nation does not want to be integrated with another nation that is their prerogative to do so. This flexibility will be allowed to prevent unnecessary pressure from other members.
This block is not a static block either because if it does it will be no better than the current one. The block every so often will be rejuvenated and it should not be hesitant to kick members that aren’t willing to agree to this. New representative will be selected every so often. The representative will be selected for each member state to be reflected each members aims. It shall also be decentralized in nature as check for weaponizing the block.
The block will first start with America and its neighbors then branch out to other Western nations. This Western block is also a means not an end. The end goal is civilizational unity but not under one government as this isn’t realistic at the moment. The reason national struggle is very important currently. However in if future conditions due change members can debate on further unity. However the block being only a means should still be emphasized.
This block will be separate from the eventual confederation established between Latin America as stated in the previous section. This block is the stepping stone to for greater Western unity. While the confederation has more to do with North and South American unity. However members of the confederation can join this block but those outside of the Americas cannot join this confederation as they sever different purposes despite similar aims.
The Dictatorship of the Proletariat as a Monarch 
Southern American Socialism views through a historical lense that a truly noble monarch and the 
DoTP are essentially almost identical. It was the monarch who placated the nobility over time which led in some nations to embrace a more absolute monarchy while those who didn’t still emphasized a strong monarchy. It wasn’t the people who overthrew the monarchy but rather the disgruntled bourgeoisie in a power grab because they knew they’d be next. Intially the enlightened absolutist postion the fixed the problems and learned from the mistakes and saw fit to make sure the bourgeoisie didn’t get too strong. The mistake they made is that they at times were too friendly to the bourgeoisie and didnt find ways to prevent the bourgeoisie inflation and eventual takeover. How does the DoTP relate to this you may ask? The DoTP addresses the mistakes of the enlightenment and is the accumulation that will placate the bourgeois similar to the monarchies that placate the fedual nobility of the past. The DoTP can also be considered the parent of the revolution similar to the concept of the monach as the parent of the nation. In its opinion the DoTP is a monarch fully freed from the shackles of capitalism and can serve the responsibilities of the people. It is essentially a non-liberal popular monarch. This monarch is also 
platonic in nature. Then 
Sorel’s myth attached to this makes even more sense to it as well.
It takes inspiration from Plato’s philosopher king and Henry St.John’s patriotic king which in part in the context of America loosely influenced the Founding Fathers’ view of a strong executive. These two gave it a more naunced position of the DoTP that are quite unorthodox to socialism.
Classical National Syndicalism versus Fascism 
(WIP) National syndicalism firstly pre-dates fascism because the first national syndicalist party was the Circle Proudhon in 1911. While the earliest fascist party wasn’t founded until 1919. However something to note fascism was at this point fascism was merely a faction within national syndicalism and vastly different to what it developed into. Around some point national syndicalism and fascism had a split resulting into two different movements because of the later clash between anti-Jacobin and pro Jacobin influences of the two. Edouard Berth and Alceste De Ambris are two examples of national syndicalist who opposed fascism. Georges Valois is another example later one but he wasn’t one initially Even though these two have overlapping ideas in areas they have completely different conclusions. For example classical national syndicalist and national syndicalists who oppose fascism tend to reject totalitarianism and a top down approach to economics and build up on the revolutionary syndicalist. Some are also more critical of idealism. Also they promote a federative syndicalist framework which fascists would disagree with due to their different ideals of the state and economic development. National syndicalists also tend to support class struggle more so than fascism does overall. Fascists are different as they support a corporatist approach that rejects class struggle in parts because of its philosophyical and economic frameworks. It has a top down economics approach. Also since it upholds actual idealism, which is a variation of humanism, its metaphysical presumption ends to a totalitarian state which is very different from how classical national syndicalists and national syndicalists who oppose fascism view the state. The reason why people think national syndicalism is fascist is due to fascism piggybacking off of national syndicalism. While in reality the two lead to completely separate outcomes due to their influences and developments.
Misellaenous Topics
1688 The Rise of British Liberalism and Its Aftermath On Anglo Civilization
(WIP) The year 1688 was chosen as the point of British Liberalism’s rise because this accumulation of ideas resulted in the “Glorious Revolution” which was supported by bourgeois who were particularly Protestsants who disliked the more High Church policies of the Church of England and the anti-Catholic attitude resulted in these bourgeoisie calling the support of the Dutch overthrew King James II of England and VII of Scotland who was legitimate monarch of England, Scotland, and Ireland. This revolution sentimented the parliament as the one who called the shots and slowly the monarch became ceremonial. This also was furthermore felt more slowly throughout the British colonies in North America. These actions as ultimately ended up in the breaking point of that resulted in the American Revolution which the Americans saw the British parliament is the true enemy but realized that king wasn’t free from the blame due to King George III following parliaments orders. Then by the end of the American Revolution you see the split between Anglo Liberalism. One of British and American thought thus creating a rivalry until sometime prior to World War I. Ultimately the America liberal thought beat the British because Great Britain is basically a satellite of America now.
This analysis isn’t to say that we should return to a society prior to 1688 but to understand what the “Glorious Revolution” caused for Britain and that liberalism had existed in Britain well before the French Revolution and really that the British were the perpetrators of liberalism and spread its ideals. Another thing it’s aftermath isn’t what the Whigs thought a liberal society would come about and Britain is not really recognizable as much to those who championed the liberal cause early on. Liberalism in Britain didn’t help the lower classes it only made them passive and weak. Liberalism only benefited the bourgeois classes that’s why they were so keen on it and still are despite its negative impacts.
Jacobite influences on the American struggle during the American Revolution
(WIP)
There were those who fought in the 3rd Jacobite Rising of 1745 and some of these men ended up fighting in the American Revolution. This will mainly go over how the Jacobites had some influence in the American struggle for independence. For example Hugh Mercer the great grandfather of General Patton was a Jacobite veteran and he was a friend of Washington and he served under him as well [23]
[24]
Jacobite thought finding a home in parts of America does make a lot more sense than some people think. Mainly due to the Scottish not wanting to be a mere province in Britain and this idea did influence some people thinking in American. So with this context in mind the fighting against the British crown left the plains of Britain and into the American plains and culminated into the American Revolution. So in a way America independence in some sense indirectly was a win for the Jacobites.
A Catholic Defense for Class Struggle
Firstly before addressing this we need to outline what clas struggle means as it is not simply a Marxist position nor does it mean humanity is only confined to view that a reduces it to only economic factors. This view predates Marx by a lot and is evident in Proudhon and other philosophical writings. It is also clearly present in Vico’s work because he talks about the differences in human civilization but somethings aren’t unique and struggle between interests groups is one. Also class struggle is not a utopian or idealistic view in where society peacefully propells a specific class. Rather class struggle is confined into a realist view noting that action determines how struggle between interests groups shape society. Nor does it propose people are reduced only to material parts or to the chemical make up. Rather it recognizes things within people are complex and this ties into areas such as class. Once this baseline is understood it becomes better to understand that this view isn’t incompatible with Catholic teaching. The reason it isn’t incompatible because it doesn’t automatically mean classes will be done away with rather it realizes the dynamic nature of people and by extension society. Also if we generalize class struggle then some like Vico or others that are clearly not materialistic or Marxists would be condemned but since they are not then peeling back the misunderstanding makes it better to start from a dialogue.
Next there are various views on class struggle but the one that makes the most sense is that class struggle can be viewed in a divine light instead of as something demonic. Why because it doesn’t promote senseless violence nor does it put people above God rather it tries to better understand people without caving into rationalism. Also it views ethical defense grounded in divine law in this view. So with this into consideration it cannot be anti-Christian when carefully studied and applied appropriately due to the fact it considers what is part of divine law. It can also be tied into just war. The reason is if a specific group uses tyrannical methods against the other then ethical violence like self defense would be appropriate. So therefore it establishes an ethical response to tyranny.
This is not to change what class struggle is but rather understand what it actually is as this idea has different connotations due to being misapplied by modernists in my opinion. I bring this up due to the fact the ideas of development of doctrine are still defended by the Church despite modernists misappropriating it. So why isn’t something like class struggle not defended as much? It’s rather unfortunate but it feels like something could be lost if this is hostily opposed. Class struggle viewed in better context does explain something that is evident within society.
In my opinion due to Sorel understanding a Catholic writer like Vico he fixed Marx’s misunderstanding. Why because Vico is opposed to reductionist definitions like Sorel and puts emphasis on act and doesn’t put rational thinking on this pedestal. This makes class struggle not just an economic condition confined by materialism but a breathing force caused by action embodied by myths or poetry to better understand people. He shattered the decaying misconception that always was there. Why because Sorel was influenced by Catholicism directly or indirectly due to his various influences and which in the Catholic view contains the fullness of truth. So therefore if pushed enough we can find the truth of class struggle that no Catholic could simply say is false. This clarification is provided to prevent skepticism that has been prevalent for a while on this topic.
Class struggle is also not about abolishing the community, class, or proletariat in the communist notion. Communism fails at understanding socialism because it thinks to solve the contradictions by abolishing it which goes against its anti-Utopian stance thus making it weirdly utopian according to syndicalists. So if class struggle does not make all classes go away what does it do you my ask? It actually rejuvenates society and in the syndicalist perspective uses this to propel society to a proudcer society bound together by community built from the bottom up. With this clarification out of the way it is closer to a unity amongst society despite its revolutionary nature. However this doesn’t mean it placates to class collaboration because this force does a lot to rejuvenate and facilitate a unity because it is solidarity that allows class struggle to begin with because without a joined struggle what can an individual do on its own? If it is viewd like this there might be less push back from the Church as this view aims to be united by truth.
I understand there will be objections because other will say but what about harmony amongst classes? Which is not a convincing argument and is pretty idealistic as different interests groups will eventually be at odds and clash or cause struggle between each other. So really struggle is the only thing that can bring amongst greater unity. Sure a the capitalist class will be abolished because post-abolition there would be no distinction between the two so then enventually greater unity will be formed not be impressive words but by action. To further clarify why I said there would be no distinction because the capitalist mode would be done away with and a new society would take its place. This society will have no distinctions as it will transition into a society of producers rather than one of consumers so then everyone will be at varying levels be responsible for a specific output as there no longer be one class responsibile for this.
Neo-Jacobinsm and its Problems
(WIP)
Neo-jacobinism has existed in various ideologies from liberal to non liberal ideologies. This ideology has similar problems to its predecessor but the difference is that it is a more recent variant. Therefore it has other problems too. This will give a few examples of neo-jacobin ideology as well.
The first example of neo-jacobinism would be liberal post-Napleonic War. However at this point it was rather underground and other types of liberalism had took its place or in other countries was just classically conservative. The then Concert of Europe largely forced other influenced by this ideas to be pragmatic so if some weren’t underground they had to become pragmatic. Charles X’s failures could have lead to a resurgence but it didn’t not. The 1848 liberal revolution which argued could be somewhat neo-jacobin failed due to poor tactics and also other forces crushing them. Also the very weak second republic dissolved and Napleon III creating the Second French Empire practically forced it underground in France yet again.
The Second example would be the blanquists. I pointed this out due to them heavily borrowing from jacobin thought and ideal especially with their secret elite emphasis. These ideas would go on to influence other movements that took inspiration from them. An idea in specific is the view of a vanguard however it is different from 
Lenin’s. The difference is this vanguard is to be permanent and has no plans to remove it in the future. The other ideas of the blanquists include their views on centralism which could be argued to be liberal in nature compared to Lenin’s centralism. If you want to the more detailsd please refer critique on blanquism in the section called “ Criticques of other variants of socialism and ‘socialism’” for better clarity. To summarize its failing is the cold calculated elite. However this ideas spread further than the previous examples
For the third example the argument provided is that the proponents of Italian unification were themselves neo-jacobin. As they believe only a unitarian centralized government could unite Italy. They dislike traditional organized religion but viewed religion as a necessary. There problem is that it didn’t really solve the Southern question. However by this point this ideology is becoming more strengthened. An example of a figure would Giuseppe Mazzini.
The final example is the accumulation of this into one very recognizable 20th century ideology. Yes there were other movements but that were not as relevant compared to others. This ideology is 
fascism. Fascism realizes this as it moves beyond classical jacobinism. For example instead of just merely stating the government is for the people they would state the government is the people and there cannot be any separation between the two. It is due to its philosophy and practices. They also go further on the civic religion and move beyond the dichotomy of freedom of religion and freedom from religion to the state itself is religion. The reason is they argue the the state should not only encompass the spiritual but everything of the individual. The idea of traditional religion co-existing within fascism would be opposed so far as it benefits it as explained earlier as the state is religion itself as well. Even the philosophical founder himself links this to liberal tradition. To clarify jacobinism is a form of liberalism. He said,
Of which liberalism does one wish to speak? I distinguish two principal forms of liberalism. For one…liberty is a right; for the other a duty. For one it is a gift; for the other a conquest… One liberalism conceives liberty rooted in the individual, and therefore opposes the individual to the State, a State understood as possessing no intrinsic value—but exclusively serving the well being and the improvement of the individual. The State is seen as a means, not an end. It limits itself to the maintenance of public order, excluding itself from the entirety of spiritual life—which, therefore, remains exclusively a sphere restricted to the individual conscience. That liberalism, historically, is classical liberalism—of English manufacture. It is, we must recognize, a false liberalism, containing only half the truth. It was opposed among us by Mazzini with a criticism, that I maintain, is immortal. But there is another liberalism, that matured in Italian and German thought, that holds entirely absurd this view of the antagonism between the State and the individual.-
Giovanni Gentile
Now with this quote out of the way this points that neo-jacobinism was realized by going beyond mere classical liberalism and that in the fascist view is liberalism finalized hence why the reject classical liberalism. The problem with this is that it is extremely rationalist in nature as in itself using everything it can to justify it for true “liberty.” This makes jacobinism look tame as they go beyond the culte of reason. This is an abhorrent understanding of liberty and justice. This proves that this ideology proves it is the conclusion of what was simply an extension of the Ancien Regime.
To clarify what this position entails context will be provided. The Jacobin Regime was merely an extension of the Ancien Regime not in character but by institutions and proposals. The Jacobin regime didn’t end the ongoing propses of centralism that occurred during the absolutism in the Ancien Regime. Secondly it further expanded the state more. Sure the ideas and means where different but still resonates with King Louis XIV. He said, “I am the state.” Fascism is simply the conclusion of what continued under the Jacobin regime. Also to mention just because they oppose monarchy doesn’t mean they oppose absolutism. Their framework has differences but it parallels it. They would state that the state is me and all of us because we are the grantors of liberty which is indistinguishable from the state.This still echoes King Louis XIV statement just beyond him.
In conclusion neo-jacobinism is a problem due to their idealistic and quite frankly flawed view of liberty. It completely subjects the will of the people to the state to justify their tyranny. This is simply the jacobin menace but on steroids. The reason is it results in a very warped state that unknowingly becomes the sole thing it hates which is the status-quo. It is the the result of misguided fanatical revolutionary thinking not reactionaryism. Socialism opposes liberalism not because its reactionary but rather it wants to fight against the notion that the state is all and realizing this grants more liberty. The state is a means not an end.
Against Fourth Positionism
(WIP)
Summary
Union Democracy
Fusion Populism
Constitutionalism
Political-Executive and Economic-Legislative Duality
The Political Executive Branch
Elective Monarchism- Monarcho-Syndicalism
Executive For Life
Temporary Vanguard
Union Above Party
Nomination by Merit
Representation by the People
/
Legtimization by the Church
Federalism
Regonial Autonomy
Restructuring of State Lines
Foralism
Municipal Polities- Local and Regional Constitutions
Community Stewardship
- The Economic Legislature
Syndicalism
Multi-Level Union Legislation
Municipal Level- State Level
National Level
- Decentralized Planned Economics
Agro-Industrialism
Urban-Rural Synthesis
Technologically Moderate
Nuclear Power Advocacy
Civilizational Architecture Appreciation
Local Economic Organization
- Syndicalist Organization
Mutualistic Economic Organization in Underdeveloped Areas (transitional to syndicalist organization)
Workingman Guilds
Mutualist Banking
Protectionism
Limited Autarky in Essential Goods
National Self Sufficiency
- Combined Production of Goods
Develpoing Substitute Goods
Ending Consumerism, Artificial Scarcity, and Artificial Supply and Demand
Abolition of Wage Slavery and Commodity Form (In the non-Marxist sense)
Community Oriented Trade
Cultural
Revolutionary-Traditionalist 
Social Conservative
Traditional Catholic
Nuclear Family
Clan Structure for Extended Families
Complimentarianism 
Collectivism- Anti-Consumerism
Anti-Abortion
Anti-Prostitution
Catholic Social Teaching
Social Justice
Anti-Racism
Interculturalism- Anti-Imperialism
Anti-Colonialism
Anti-Neocolonialism- Anti-Imperialism
Non-secular religious toleration and non-secular religious representation.- Against Bourgeoisie Cultural Hegemony Within a Revolutionary-Traditionalist Framework
Cultural Nationalism
The Nations of America as One- Forging A Proletarian Nation
Diplomacy
Pan-American Civilizationalism
Political Integration in 
North America
Native Autonomy
Confederation with 
Latin America- Merger of Canada and America
Common Continental Military
Common Continental Diplomacy- Common Continental Trade
- Common Continental Development
Supranationalism
Alter-Globalism
Accelerating Global Awareness of Capitalist Exploitation
Non-Interventionism
Limited Detente With the Second World
Anti-Zionism
Dissolution of NATO
Western Revitalization
Becoming a Non-Aligned Nation
Praxis
- The Proletarian Strike
Establishing a Mass Movement- Establishing a Temporary Vanguard
- Rebirthing the Revolutionary Syndicalist Movement in America
Succeeding Connollyism 
Forging a Myth of Rejuvenation
Mass Media Campaigning
Inspiring Christians to Action- Encouraging Class Consciousness
Organizing on the Ground Level
Workers' Self Defense
- General Strike
Tests
76.4%
55.6%
34.7%
41.0%
43.8%
72.9%
Closet Matches:
- 1.
Gandhian Socialism 99.6% - 2.
Euskadi Carlism 99.4% - 3.
Reactionary Socialism (Bruh What? 😭) 99.3% - 4. Communitarianism 99.3%
- 5. Guild Socialism 99.2%
- 6.
Blue Labourism 99.1 - 7.
Social Distributism 98.6% - 8. Sorelianism 98.5%
- 9. Syndicalism 98.3%
- 10.
Religious Socialism 97.9% - 11.
Catholic Workerism 97.8% - 12.
Conservative Socialism 97.8%
Furthest Matches:
- 1.
Fordism 0% - 2.
Landian Accelerationism 14.8% - 3.
Timocracy 29.0% - 4.
Absolute Monarchism 31.0% - 5.
Monarcho-capitalism 31.4% - 6.
Propertarianism 32.6% - 7.
Aristocratic Radicalism 34.3% - 8.
State Liberalism 35.8% - 9.
Crypto-Anarchism 38.3% - 10.
Cameralism 38.5% - 11.
Pinkertonism 40.3% - 12.
Capitalist Transhumanism 40.5%
- Sorelianism
”By accepting the idea of the general strike, although we know that it is a myth, we are proceeding exactly as a modern physicist does who has complete confidence in his science.”
-Georges Sorel - National syndicalism
"Without the action of fascism, which has broken the hegemony of the reds and whites, our union movement would not exist."
- Edmondo Rossoni - Syndicalism
”Nothing can so impress the mind and soul of the worker as this enduring battle for daily bread.”
- Johann Rudolf Rocker
Quotes
“ Democracy is succeeding in throwing minds into a state of confusion, preventing many intelligent people from seeing things as they really are, because democracy is served by apologists who are clever in the art of beclouding questions. This is due to cunning language, smooth sophistry, and a great array of scientific declamations. It is above all of democratic times that it can be said that humanity is governed by the magical power of impressive words rather than by ideas, by slogans rather than by reason, and by dogmas whose origins no one thinks of looking into rather than by doctrines
founded on observation. It is my opinion that it would be well to submit one of these charlatan dogmas (that is, the idea of progress) to an analysis conducted according to that method which alone is able to guarantee us against all deception; that is, an analysis founded on a historical investigation of the relationships among the classes. Having in this way formulated several observations (which I consider worth- while) on bourgeois ideology, I have taken the liberty to submit
them to the public. More than once, I have played truant; whenever I have found the opportunity of clarifying the origin, meaning, or value of a modern idea, I have believed myself justified in digressing on that point.”-
Georges Sorel “The Illusions of Progress Preface xliv-xlv
“ The educational policies of the Third Republic have placed the
church in daily conflict with the official representatives of democracy. The church took up the cause of its teaching orders, whose interests were endangered by lay teaching. The church conducted violent campaigns in the hope of abrogating laws republicans regard as unassailable. Not a single defeat discouraged the church, and she still hopes to triumph. Clericalism thus remains an enemy of democracy, and the latter tries to usurp the faithful from the church. The republicans have been denounced as "enemies of God"; as a result, academic competition has produced a battle against beliefs. Skepticism has become an essential element of the republican program, since the public schools have been successfully defended only through the use of anti-Catholic propaganda. The church made this propaganda easy because it entrusted its defense to sacrisity-haunting petit bourgeois, who thought it a good idea to teach the people things educated Christians would find offensive if addressed to their children: the doctrine of providence has sunk to the level of the intelligence of savages, their conception of nature is that of fetishists, and the Miracle has been dishonoured by a charlatanism worthy of drug peddlers. Primary schooling has permitted placing in the hands of the people, books and newspapers that show them that the men of La Croix and Le Pélerin laugh at them. The clerical press, in its blindness, has given its adversaries an easy way of demonstrating the stupidity, bad faith, and crass ignorance of the writers who call themselves the friends of God. The popularization of scientific knowledge certainly creates serious difficulties for Christianity, which has sometimes excessively connected its theology to the medieval concept of nature. These difficulties have been made particularly acute in France in the wake of the struggle undertaken by the church to preserve its teaching orders. That part of the bourgeoisie which possesses a slightly more elevated culture is much less hostile to the church than are the people, because these bourgeois have not been called upon to equate the Gospel with Pélerin." The priests who address themselves to this group almost always take the precaution of declaring themselves adversaries of the sacristy-haunting petit bourgeois, who conduct
political campaigns among the poor classes.”-
“As a Socialist I am prepared to do all one man can do to achieve for our motherland her rightful heritage – independence; but if you ask me to abate one jot or tittle of the claims of social justice, in order to conciliate the privileged classes, then I must decline.”-
“Progressives are more conservative not in conserving culture rather in conserving the status quo and its ways . These so called revolutionaries aren’t as revolutionary as they think they are because culturally they are aligned with the status quo and its meta narrative . Since traditionalists fight the meta narrative of the status quo and its ways they are actually more revolutionary. That’s why I say a traditionalist today is a revolutionary.”-
Me
“A truly free South and in turn America will only happen under socialism because it will be free from the oppression of capitalism. There is no other way to make a free South and in turn America without it.”-
“Promiscuity in sexual matters is bourgeois. It is a sign of degeneration. The proletariat is a rising class. It does not need an intoxicant to stupefy or stimulate it, neither the intoxicant of sexual laxity or of alcohol. It should and will not forget the vileness, the filth and the barbarity of capitalism.”-
Vladimir Lenin
“When Mitchel was arrested and his paper suppressed, two other papers sprang up to take the post of danger thus left vacant. One The Irish Tribune, represented the element which stood for the “moral right of insurrection”, and the other, The Irish Felon, embodied the ideas of those who insisted that the English conquest of Ireland was two-fold, social, or economic, and political, and that therefore the revolution must also have these two aspects. These latter were at all times in the fullest sympathy with the movements of the working-class democracy at home and abroad. John Martin edited The Irish Felon, James Fintan Lalor and Devin Reilly were its chief writers. Reilly, who hailed originally from Monaghan, had long been a close observer of, and sympathiser with, the movements of the working class, and all schemes of social redemption. As a writer on The Nation newspaper he had contributed a series of articles on the great French Socialist, Louis Blanc, in a review of his great work Dix Ans (Ten Years), in which, while dissenting from the “State Socialistic” schemes of social regeneration favoured by Blanc, he yet showed the keenest appreciation of the gravity and universality of the social question, as well as grasping the innate heroism and sublimity of the working-class movement. This attitude he preserved to the last of his days. When in exile in America, after the insurrection, he was chosen by the printers of Boston to edit a paper, the Protective Union, they had founded on co-operative principles to advocate the rights of labour, and was thus one of the first pioneers of labour journalism in the United States – a proud and fitting position for a true Irish revolutionist. As writer in The American Review he wrote a series of articles on the European situation, of which Horace Greeley said that, if collected and published as a book, they would create a revolution in Europe. Commenting upon the uprising in France in June he says in The Irish Felon: ‘We are not Communists – we abhor communism for the same reason we abhor poor-law systems, and systems founded on the absolute sovereignty of wealth. Communism destroys the independence and dignity of labour, makes the workingman a State pauper and takes his manhood from him. But, communism or no communism, these 70,000 workmen had a clear right to existence – they had the best right to existence of any men in France, and if they could have asserted their right by force of arms they would have been fully justified. The social system in which a man willing to work is compelled to starve, is a blasphemy, an anarchy, and no system. For the present these victims of monarchic rule, disowned by the republic, are conquered; 10,000 are slain, 20,000 perhaps doomed to the Marquesas. But for all that the rights of labour are not conquered, and will not and cannot be conquered. Again and again the labourer will rise up against the idler – the workingmen will meet this bourgeoisie, and grapple and war with them till their equality is established, not in word, but in fact.’ Students of Socialism will recognize that many who are earnest workers for Socialism to-day would, like Devin Reilly, have ‘abhorred’ the crude Communism of 1848. The fact that he insisted upon the unqualified right of the working class to work out its own salvation, by force of arms if necessary, is what entitles Devin Reilly to a high place of honour in the estimation of the militant proletariat of Ireland.”-
We must never forget that American is multiple nations gathered together in a grand union otherwise we forget the true character of America. These nations bounded together to form something grander and we must take this example to move forward with something even grander than our forefathers proposed. Together we march as one in this grander goal and said grander goal is socialism! E Pluribus Unum!—
Me
The tryant’s state subjects us all, but cries ‘Democracy.’-
Lyric from an English Cavalier song called “It’s A Mad World My Masters”
“Red is the color of justice and sovereignty. And since all men love and seek the red, is not red the symbol of human fraternity?… Deny the red flag, dye the purple, but that is to eliminate the social question, the right to work. Every time that the people, defeated by suffering, has wanted to express, outside of that juridical legality that murders it, its wishes and complaints, it has marched under a red banner. The red flag, it is true, has still not made the tour of the world, like its fortunate rival, the tricolor. Justice has spoken very well; Mr. de Lamartine has not gone farther than the camp of Mars. It is so terrible, Justice, that one could not hide it too much. Poor red flag! Everyone abandons you! Well! I embrace you. I clutch you to my breast. Cheers to fraternity! The red flag is the sign of a revolution that will be the last. The red flag! It is the shroud of Christ, the federal standard of the human race.”-
Pierre Joseph Proudhon, “Dilemma:Red or White”
Books
Read
Note:some of the books I listed are from memory and isn’t a complete collection. As it progresses it is more accurate starting with Codreanu
- - Seven Themes of Catholic Social Teaching
- by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (Read this before getting more into politics iirc but I’ve read this more recently too)
- by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
- Reflections on The French Revolution (parts of it iirc) 
Works by De Maistre (portions) 
For My Legionaries by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu 
Alexander Hamilton’s Vision of an American Monarchy - Declaration of the Cahiers du Cercle Proudhon
Against Anti-Fascism: Amadeo Bordiga’s last interview interviewed by Sergio Zavoli and Edeck Osser 
Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII - The Servaile State (portions of it)
The Twenty-Six Point Pogram of the Falagne by Jose Antonio Pro de Rivera 
The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Frederich Engels - Reflections on Violence by Georges Sorel
- What Is To Be Done? Vladimir Lenin
- On The Freedom of the Press by Karl Marx
- The New Moral World Articles 1843-1844 by Frederich Engels
- Comment on James Mill by Karl Marx
- Introduction to the Critique of the Philosophy of the Right by Karl Marx
- Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts by Karl Marx
- On the Jewish Question by Karl Marx
- - The Condition of the Working Class in England (some) by Frederich Engles
- - The Capitalist Bourgeoisie by Georges Valois
- Summa Contra Gentiles Book 1 by St.Thomas Aquinas- War or Revolution by Georges Valois
- Declarations of Principles by Henri Saint-Simon 
Sorel and Social Architecture speech by Georges Valois
The Restoration of the Guild System by Arthur Penty - Guild Socialism Re-stated by G.D.H. Cole
The Great Heresies by Hilaire Belloc 
Henry St.John Letters On the Spirit of Patriotism: On the Idea of a Patriotic King: On the State of the Patries- The Socialist Future of the Syndicates by Georges Sorel
Anarchism and Syndicalism by Edouard Berth - Easy Eassys by Peter Maurin
Ordered by Love: An Introduction to John Duns Scotus by Thomas M. Ward - National Guilds An Inquiry Into the Wage System And The Way Out by Samuel George Hobson
- For The Citizens Army (Worker’s Republic, 30th October, 1915) by James Connolly
- The Connolly-DeLeon
Controversy
Cork Worker’s Club Introduction - Wages, Marriage, and the Church by James Connolly
- DeLeon Replies… by Daniel DeLeon
- Wages and other things by James Connolly
- Connolly’s Defense by James Connolly
Appendix I: Relevant extracts from letters sent by
James Connolly to John Carstairs Matheson,
Editor of The Socialist,
The organ of the S.L.P. of Great Britain
Appendix II: Socialism or the Catholic Church
- Party Politicians- Noble, Ignoble and Local by James Connolly
- Irish Socialist Republic Party by James Connolly
- Socialism and Nationalism by James Connolly
- Erin’s Hope: The Ends and the Means by James Connolly
- Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee by James Connolly
- The Fighting Race by James Connolly
- Home Rule Journalism and Patrotism by James Connolly
- The Men We Honor by James Connolly
- An Open Letter to Dublin Castle by James Connolly
- Home Thrusts (1-12) by James Connolly
- The Roots of Modern War by James Connolly
- Labor Representation by James Connolly
- Peasant Propritetorship and Socialism by James Connolly
- British and Russian Imperialism I-II
- Revolutionary Song by James Connolly
- Regicide and Revolution by James Connolly
- The Irish Land Question by James Connolly
- The Independent and New Machinery by James Connolly
- Parnellism and Labor by James Connolly
- A Socialist Candidate for Dublin Corporation by James Connolly
- Resurgam! by James Connolly
- The Sweating System by James Connolly
- State Monopoly versus Socialism by James Connolly
- Socialism and Religion by James Connolly
- Father Finlay, S.J, and Socialism by James Connolly
/Seventy Days In Russia: What I Saw by Angel Pestaña - Socialism and Political Reformism by James Connolly
- Soliders of the Queen by James Connolly
- / Women’s Movement In Spain by Angel Pestaña
- / Trade-union and political movement in Spain by Angel Pestaña
- What Is Property By Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
- General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
- The Illusions of Progress by Georges Sorel
- Physical Forces in Irish Politics by James Connolly
- The Economic Basis of Politics by James Connolly
- The South African War I by James Connolly
- Law and Order by James Connolly
- The Re-Conquest of Ireland by James Connolly
- Compsitors and the Linotype by James Connolly
- America and Ireland by James Connolly
- Socialism and Imperialism by James Connolly
- Landlordism in Towns by James Connolly
- The South African War II by James Connolly
- A Plea for Children by James Connolly
- Dogma and Food by James Connolly
- Dublin and the War by James Connolly
- Our Mad Rulers by James Connolly
- Let us Free Ireland by James Connolly
The Post-Right Explainer by ebeggin 
Communization For People In A Hurry by D.Z Rowan 
Communisation by Gillles Dauvé 
Newspapers and the Workers by Antonio Gramsci - Men or Machines by Antonio Gramsci
- The Revolution Against ‘Capital’ by Antonio Gramsci
- One Year of History by Antonio Gramsci
- Red Ink Gramsci
- The Price of History by Antonio Gramsci
- Workers Democracy by Antonio Gramsci
- The Conquest of the State by Antonio Gramsci
- Workers and Peasants (August 2, 1919) by Antonio Gramsci
- The Development of the Revolution by Antonio Gramsci
- Chronicles of the new order by Antonio Gramsci
- To the section commissars of the FIAT-Brevetti workshops by Antonio Gramsci
- Unions and Councils by Antonio Gramsci
- Unions and the dictatorship by Antonio Gramsci
- Revolutionaries and Elections by Antonio Gramsci
- The problem of power by Antonio Gramsci
- The events of December 2-3 (1919) by Antonio Gramsci
- Workers and Peasants (November 3, 1920) by Antonio Gramsci
- Split or Disorder by Antonio Gramsci
- The ape people by Antonio Gramsci
- War is war by Antonio Gramsci
- The Turin factory council movement by Antonio Gramsci
- The Communists and Elections by Antonio Gramsci
- Men of Flesh and Blood by Antonio Gramsci
- The Arditi de Popolo by Antonio Gramsci
- The Two Fascism by Antonio Gramsci
- The grimace of Gwynplaine by Antonio Gramsci
- The Agrarian Struggle in Italy by Antonio Gramsci
- The tactic of failure by Antonio Gramsci
- The parties and the masses by Antonio Gramsci
- The Genoa Conference of Italy (April 19, 1922)
- Lessons by Antonio Gramsci
- The Vatican by Antonio Gramsci
- Neither Fascism nor Liberalism: Sovietism! by Antonio Gramsci
- Introduction to the First Course of the Party School
- Gramsci’s Speech to the Italin Parliament (16 May 1925) [25]
- Maximilianism and Extremism by Antonio Gramsci
- Sterile and Negative Criticism by Antonio Gramsci
- On the Operations of the Central Committee of the Party by Antonio Gramsci
- Letter to Palmiro Togliatti by Antonio Gramsci
- Gramsci’s Arrest: Letter by Tania Schucht
- Letter to Tania Schucht by Antonio Gramsci
The Constitution of the Free State of Fiume by 
Gabriel D’Annuzio and 
Alceste De Ambris - Bruce Glasier in Ireland by James Connolly
- Difficulties of Socialism by James Connolly
- Difficulties of Capitalism by James Connolly
- Resolution of Sympathy with the Boer Republics by James Connolly
- The Coming Generation by James Connolly
- Ireland Sober is Free Ireland? by James Connolly
- Parliamentary Democracy by James Connolly
- The Corporation and the Children by James Connolly
- An Object Lesson by James Connolly
- Socialist Electioneering by James Connolly
- Class Government and Class Warfare
- Justice and Millerand by James Connolly
- Irish Trade Union Congress (June 1901) by James Connolly
- Home Rulers and Labour: A Remonstrance
Addressed to English Socialists by James Connolly
- Letter to the Secretary of the Edinburgh branch of the SDF by James Connolly
- Wood Quay Ward: To the Electors by James Connolly
- Coronation of King Edward VII by James Connolly
- Taken Root by James Connolly
- The Irish Socialist Republican Party and the Dewsbury Election by James Connolly
- Our “American Mission” by James Connolly
- Wood Quay Ward: Election Adress Dublin, January 1903 by James Connolly
- The New Danger by James Connolly
- A Rebel Song by James Connolly
- Unpatriotic? by James Connolly
- The Socialist Labor Party of American and the London SDF by James Connolly
- The American SDP: Its Origins, its Press, and its Policies by James Connolly
- Loubet- and Other Things by James Connolly
- We only want the Earth by James Connolly
- Wages and Princes (October, 26, 1907) by James Connolly
- Notes from New York (December 7, 1907) by James Connolly
The Republic by Plato 
The Doctrine of Fascism (1932) by Benito Mussolini - The Decomposition of Marxism by Georges Sorel
- Declerations of Principles of the Irish Socialist Federation (January 1908) by James Connolly
- The Coming Revolt In India I by James Connolly
- The Harp Strings (January 1908) by James Connolly
- Our Purpose and Function by James Connolly
- A Political Party of the Workers by James Connolly
- The Coming Revolt in India II by James Connolly
- Irish Socialist Republic: To The Irish People (Issued 1896) (Republished 1908) by James Connolly
- Sinn Féin And Socialism by James Connolly
- To Irish Wage Workers in America by James Connolly
- Harp Strings (June 1908) by James Connolly
- Political Action (July 1908) by James Connolly
- Michael Davit: A Text for a Revolutionary Lecture (August 1908) by James Connolly
- The Irish Masses in History (September 1908) by James Connolly
- Roman Catholicism and Socialism (September 1908) by James Connolly
- Facets of American Liberty (December 1908) by James Connolly
- Sinn Fein, Socialism and the Nation by James Connolly
- Learning Their Lesson by James Connolly
- Ballots, Bullets, Or- by James Connolly
- Capitalism and the Irish Small Farmer by James Connolly
- Erin’s Hope: The Ends & The Means by James Connolly
- Socialism Made Easy by James Connolly
- Introduction to Marx’s Class Struggle in France by Frederick Engels
- The Class Struggles in France, 1848-1850 by Karl Marx
- Clara Zetkin’s Interview with Vladimir Lenin on the Women’s Question
- Socialist Party of Ireland by James Connolly (1910 or early 1911)
- A New Labor Policy by James Connolly (1910)
- Labor and Politics in Ireland by James Connolly (April 1910)
- Labor in Irish History by James Connolly
The Ideological Program of the ASLG 
Anselm of Canterbury: The Major Works (Oxford World’s Classic)
Scivias (Know the Ways of the Lord) by St.Hildegard of Bingen- Liber Vitae Meritorum (Book of Life’s Merits) by St.Hildegard of Bingen
- Liber Divinorum Operum (The Book of Divine Works) by St.Hidelgard of Bingen
- House of Hospitality (Summarization) by Dorthy Day
- A SPECIMEN OF MR. BLAINE’S DIPLOMACY—IS HE A SAFE MAN TO TRUST AS PRESIDENT?
BY D. DE LEON, ESQ. (1884)
- The Conference at Berline on
The West-African Question by Daniel De Leon
(1886)
- The Voice of Madison by Daniel De Leon (August 1889)
- Social Character of Machinery by Daniel De Leon (September 9th 1894)
- Equality Before the Law by Daniel De Leon (April 28th 1895)
- A Test Point by Daniel De Leon (August 11th 1895)
- Conservatism by Daniel De Leon (October 20th 1895)
- Reform or Revolution by Daniel De Leon (1896)
- A Word to the Proletariat of Spain by Daniel De Leon (March 20th 1896)
- Our Political Equinoctial Storms by Daniel De Leon (June 7th 1896)
- What Means This Strike? by Daniel De Leon (1898)
- Throwing Washington Overboard by Daniel De Leon (June 28th 1898)
- Patrotism and Poverty by Daniel De Leon (July 26th 1900)
- Race Riots by Daniel De Leon (July 30th 1900)
- For A Merry Christmas by Daniel De Leon (December 25th 1900)
- Labor Represented? by Daniel De Leon (November 5th 1902)
- The Public Good by Daniel De Leon (December 6th 1902)
- Sailing Under False Colors by Daniel De Leon (June 6th 1903)
- The Burning Questions of Trades Unionism by Daniel De Leon (1904)
- Lo,the Poor Inventor! by Daniel De Leon (April 25th 1904)
- A Mission of the Trades Union by Daniel De Leon (March 4th 1905)
- The “Intellectual” by Daniel De Leon (March 19th 1905)
- The Chicago Convention by Daniel De Leon (June 27th 1905)
- Morgan and the “Federalist” by Daniel De Leon (September 6th 1905)
- The Foolishness of the Americans by Daniel De Leon (October 3rd 1905)
- Industrialism by Daniel De Leon (January 23rd 1906)
- Why Not? by Daniel De Leon (April 6th 1906)
- The Drug Habit by Daniel De Leon (July 30th 1906)
- Is Socialism Pratical? by Daniel De Leon (September 3rd 1906)
- The Uses of Competition by Daniel De Leon (November 17th 1906)
- With Marx For Text by Daniel De Leon (June 29th 1907)
- Libeling Their Ancestry by Daniel De Leon (July 3rd 1907)
- Yelling for Themselves by Daniel De Leon (December 17th 1907)
- As To Politics:
A Discussion Upon the Relative Importance Of Political Action and of Class-Conscious Economic Action and the Urgent Necessity of Both by Daniel De Leon (1907)
- Clear the Decks by Daniel De Leon (March 3 1908)
- Trimming the Poodle by Daniel De Leon (November 2nd 1908)
- The Consumer by Daniel De Leon (May 22nd 1909)
- Syndicalism by Daniel De Leon (1909)
- “Corporations” and “Capitalists” by Daniel De Leon (December 6, 1909)
- The A.F OF L., What It Says and What It Does by Daniel De Leon (August 28th 1910)
- Demands Immediate and Costant by Daniel De Leon (June 21st 1911)
- A Colonel’s Half-Truths by Daniel De Leon (July 7th 1911)
The World of Labor by G.D.H Cole 
Towards The Human Community by Jaques Camatte - Scarcity of “Leaders by Daniel De Leon (January 2nd 1912)
- Brandeis and Efficiency by Daniel De Leon (October 20th 1912)
- Divorce by Daniel De Leon (December 3rd by 1912)
- Industrial Unionism by Daniel De Leon (Jan 20th 1913)
- Potato Bug Exterminator by Daniel De Leon (Feb 7th 1914)
- The Dreyfusian Revolution (1908) by Georges Eugene Sorel
Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R by Joesph Stalin 
The Society of Spectacle by Guy Debord - Labor In The Commonwealth by G.D.H Cole
- Old Worlds For New by A.J. Penty
- The Meaning of Industrial Freedom by G.D.H Cole and W. Mellor
The Consolation of Philosophy By St. Anicius Manlius Severinus Boethius 
A Merry Jest by St.Thomas More - Utopia by St.Thomas
- The Biography of Georges Sorel, by Augustino Lanzillo (With An Autobiographical Letter)
- Application for the Suard Pension by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- The Celebration of Sunday by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- Explanations Presented to the Public Minister on the Right of Property by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- My Testament: or, Society of Avengers by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- System of Economical Contradictions: or,
The Philosophy of Poverty by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- The Malthusians, the Representatives of the People by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- Toast to the Revolution by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- The Nature and Destination of Government by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
- The Coming Era of Mutualism by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- In Connection with Louis Blanc: The Present Use and Future Possibility of the State by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- Mutual Banking by William Batchelder Greene
- Hiding in Plain Sight An excerpt from Mutualism on building economic power for the mutualist ecosystem by Sara Horowitz
- Labor, Nationality, and Religion by James Connolly
- Mr. John E. Redmond, M.P. His Strength and Weakness by James Connolly
- Sweatshops Behind the Orange Flag by James Connolly
- The Connolly/ Walker Controversy: On Socialist Unity in Ireland:
- A Plea For Socialist Unity in Ireland by James Connolly
- Rebel Ireland and Its Protestant Leaders by William Walker
- Ireland, Karl Marx, and William by James Connolly
- Socialism and Internationalism: A Reply to Friend Connolly by William Walker
- Socialist Symposium on Internationalism, and Some Other Things by James Connolly
- A Socialist (sic) Symposium and An Evasion by William Walker
- Belfast Dockers: Their Miseries and their Triumps by James Connolly
- Walter Carpenter Free: Public Congratulations Sunday’s Meetings in Beresford Place by James Connolly
- Direct Action in Belfast by James Connolly
- Vist of King George V by James Connolly
- An Exchange on Rome and Irish Catholics
- Some Rambling Remarks by James Connolly
- Belfast Labor Meeting and Home Rule Bill by James Connolly
- Belfast Municipal Elections January 1913- Dock Ward: Election of a Councillor by James Connolly
- British Labor and Irish Politicians by James Connolly
- Catholicism, Protestantism, and Politics by James Connolly
- The United Irish League, the Labor Party, and “the Pleasant Relations” by James Connolly
- Many-Headed Opposition by James Connolly
- The Awakening of Ulster’s Democracy by James Connolly
- The Larne Strike I-II by James Connolly
- July 12th by James Connolly
- The Irish Nationalist Press by James Connolly
- North-East Ulster by James Connolly
- A Forgotten Chapter in Irish History by James Connolly
- Belfast and Dublin To-Day by James Connolly
- The Dublin Lock Out: On the Eve by James Connolly
- Press Prisoners by James Connolly
- Labor in Dublin by James Connolly
- Glorious Dublin! by James Connolly
- Documents for the Askwith Inquiry:
- Statement of the Workers’ Case by James Connolly
- Statement of the Workers’ Representative by Thomas MacPartlin
- The Children, the Irish Transport and General Workers’ Union and the Archbishop by James Connolly
- How to Release Larkin by James Connolly
- Importation vs Deportation by James Connolly
- Irish Rebels and English Mobs by James Connolly
- A Titanic Struggle by James Connolly
- Capitalist Dove of Peace? by James Connolly
- Home Thrusts (Irish Worker, 6 December 1913) by James Connolly
- Arms and the Man by James Connolly
- Home Thrusts (Irish Worker, 13 December 1913) by James Connolly
- Irish Transport and General Workers’s Union: To The Working Class of Dublin by James Connolly
- A Fiery Cross or Christmas Bells by James Connolly
- To the Linen Slaves of Belfast by James Connolly
- Mr.Murphy’s Great New Year’s Speech (January 3rd 1914) by James Connolly
- A Lesson from Dublin by James Connolly
- The Isolation of Dublin by James Connolly
- The Lenten Pastorals: A Challenge by James Connolly
- Labor and the Proposed Partition of Ireland by James Connolly
- The Outrages at Jacob’s by James Connolly
- Industrial Unity and Political Division in Ireland by James Connolly
- The War in Ulster by James Connolly
- Ireland and Ulster: An Appeal to the Working Class by James Connolly
- The Exclusion of Ulster by James Connolly
- The Solidarity of Labor by James Connolly
- Old Wine in New Bottle by James Connolly
- Independent Labor Party of Ireland: Ireland Upon Dissecting Table by James Connolly
- Changes by James Connolly
- The Legacy by James Connolly
- The Problem of Trade Union Organization by James Connolly
- The Problem of Trade Union Organization by James Connolly
- The Liberals and Ulster by James Connolly
- Adress to the Delegates by James Connolly
- Yellow Unions in Ireland by James Connolly
- Labor in the New Irish Parliament by James Connolly
- The Latest Massacre in Dublin by James
Connolly
- The Carsonite Position by James Connolly
- Our Duty In This Crisis by James Connolly
- A Continental Revolution by James Connolly
- The National Danger by James Connolly
- No Compromise-No Conciliation by James Connolly
- A Martyr For Conscience Sake by James Connolly
- America and Europe by James Connolly
- Northern Notes by James Connolly
- On German Militarism by James Connolly
- The War Upon The German Nation by James Connolly
- The Real Situation in Ireland by James Connolly
- Connolly’s Speech on War’s Outbreak
- Recruiting Let the Wastrels Go by James Connolly
- The Friends of Small Nationalities by James Connolly
- Ruling By Fooling: “Home Rule on the Statue Book” by James Connolly
- Some Perverted Battle Lines by James Connolly
- A Matter of Coercion by James Connolly
- Redmond Cannot Deliever the Goods by James Connolly
- A Forward Policy for Volunteers by James Connolly
- Forward! by James Connolly
- How England Sacrificed Belgium by James Connolly
- Ireland and the War: The Position of the Nation by James Connolly
- The Ballot or the Barricades by James Connolly
- The Hope of Ireland by James Connolly
- Rally for Labor by James Connolly
- Disturbed Dublin by James Connolly
- Labor Means the Breach by James Connolly
- Tell the Truth: A Challenge to Mr.Birrell by James Connolly
- Courtsmartial and Revolution by James Connolly
- Independent Labor Party of Ireland Appeal to the Irish Working Class by James Connolly
- War: What it Means to You by James Connolly
- “In This Supreme Hour of Our National Danger” by James Connolly
- Jottings by James Connolly
- Our Rulers as a Study by James Connolly
- Can Warfare Be Civilized? by James Connolly
- Revolutionary Unionism and War by James Connolly
- Love of Freedom by James Connolly
- Revolutionary Warfare by James Connolly (May-July 1915)
- Our Policy by James Connolly
- From a Labor Day Speech in Dublin by James Connolly
- Our Disappearing Liberties by James Connolly
- College Green: A Labor Candidate by James Connolly
- After the Battle by James Connolly
- Liberty and Labor by James Connolly
- A Railway Theif by James Connolly
- War at Home by James Connolly
- The Right to Strike by James Connolly
- What is a Scab? by James Connolly
- Coercion in England by James Connolly
- Strikes and Revolution by James Connolly
- Dublin Trades Council by James Connolly
- The Man and the Cause! by James Connolly
- Why the Citizen Army Honors Rossa by James Connolly
- Ireland’s Travail and Ireland’s Resurrection by James Connolly
- To All Laborers’ Societies by James Connolly
- Militarism by James Connolly
- Coercion in England (August, 28th 1915) by James Connolly
- Wee Joe Devlin by James Connolly <brh
- The Party versus the People by James Connolly
- Protect Your Women by James Connolly
- God Help the Poor Irish by James Connolly
- Some Irish Slaves and Slavishness by James Connolly
- James Keir Hardie by James Connolly
- Labor and the Budget: Dublin Transport Workers’ Protest by James Connolly
- Notes on the Front by James Connolly
- In Praise of the Empire by James Connolly
- Without Principle by James Connolly
- Notes on the Front (October, 16th 1915) by James Connolly
- To Hell with Contracts by James Connolly
- Notes on the Front (October, 23rd 1915) by James Connolly
- The Immorality of Dublin by James Connolly
- A War for Civilization by James Connolly
- Diplomacy by James Connolly
- Recruiting the Irish Citizen Army by James Connolly
- Ireland- Disaffected or Revolutionary by James Connolly
- The Returned Emigrants by James Connolly
- The Disputes on the Docs- Is it War? by James Connolly
- The Manchester Martyrs by James Connolly
- Conscription by James Connolly
- “Enlist or Starve”- “Come on or we will fetch you” by James Connolly
- Dublin Trade and Dublin Strikes by James Connolly
- “Trust Your Leaders” by James Connolly
- The Housing Problem from a New Standpoint by James Connolly
- Economic Conscription I by James Connolly
- Forgive and Forget by James Connolly
- Correspondents by James Connolly
- Notes on the Front (December, 25th 1915) by James Connolly
- Two Fateful Christmas Weeks by James Connolly
- The Reconquest of Ireland by James Connolly
- A Happy New Year (January, 1st 1916) by James Connolly
- A Lesson of the Strike by James Connolly
- The Volunteers of ‘82 by James Connolly
- Economic Conscription II by James Connolly
- The Programme of Labor by James Connolly
- What Is Our Program by James Connolly
- In the Gap of Danger by James Connolly
- Notes on the Front (February, 5th 1916) by James Connolly
- The Slackers I by James Connolly
- Cannon Fodder for British Imperialism by James Connolly
- Still Fighting by James Connolly
- What Is a Free Nation by James Connolly
- Notes on the Front (February, 19th 1916) by James Connolly
- The Slums and the Trenches by James Connolly
- Unemployment in Ireland by James Connolly
- Notes on the Front (March, 4th 1916) by James Connolly
- To the Seafarers of Ireland by James Connolly
- The Days of March by James Connolly
- The Slackers II by James Connolly
- The German or British Empire by James Connolly
- The National Festival by James Connolly
- Notes on the Front (March, 18th 1916) by James Connolly
- The Slackers III by James Connolly
- We Will Raise Again by James Connolly
- The Call To Arms by James Connolly
- A Cheap Bargain by James Connolly
- The Irish Flag by James Connolly
- Forces of Civilization (April, 8th 1916) by James Connolly
- Irish Trade Union Congress (April, 15th 1916) by James Connolly
- Notes on the Front (April, 15th 1916) by James Connolly
- Labor and Ireland by James Connolly (April, 22nd 1916) by James Connolly
- James Connolly’s Last Statement (May, 9th 1916)
- The Humors of Politics (1913) by James Connolly
- The Language Movement by James Connolly
- The Watchword of Labor by James Connolly
- Selction of Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci edited and translated by Quentin Hoare and Geoffrey Nowell Smith
- / Report Submitted to the Confederal Committee of the CNT by Angel Pestaña
- / Manifesto of the Thirty by Angel Pestaña and others
Basic Principles of Marxism-Leninism: A Primer by by Jose Maria Sison - Marxism-Leninism-Maoism Basic Course by the Communist Party of India (Maoist)
- Activist Study by by ARAK
- Anarchism and the Workers’ Unions by Fernand Pelloutier
- Art and Revolt (speech) by Fernand Pelloutier
- / History of the Bourses du Travail by Fernand Pelloutier
Syndicalism in the United States by William Z. Foster 
The Completed Works of St.John of the Cross Vol. 1 - Transforming Union: A Living Flame of Love by St.John of the Cross
- A Spiritual Canticle of the Soul and the Bridegroom of Christ by St.John of the Cross
The First New Science by Giambattista Vico - The New Science by Giambattista Vico
- The Balkan Wars by Amadeo Bordiga
- In the Red Light of Sacrifice Karl Libknecht…Rosa Luxemburg by Amadeo Bordiga
- The System of Communist Representation by Amadeo Bordiga
- Is this the Time to form “Soviets?” by Amadeo Bordiga
- Letters to the IIIrd International by Amadeo Bordiga
- Towards the Establishment of Worker’s Councils in Italy by Amadeo Bordiga
- Theses of the Abstentionist Communist Faction of the Socialist Party by Amadeo
Bordiga
- Seize Power of Seize the Factory? by Amadeo Bordiga
- Party and Class by Amadeo Bordiga
- Party and Class Action
- The Labor Movement: The Meeting of the Nation Council of the Italian C.G.L at Verona ( December 2 1921) by Amadeo Bordiga
- The Significance of the Socialist Split in Italy (October 7th 1922) by Amadeo Bordiga
- Speech in the Discussion of Executive Committee Report (November 11, 1922) by Amadeo Bordiga
- Report on Fascism by Amaedo Bordiga
Meet anarcho-fascism by Dmitry Mrachnik - Speech in Discussion of Organizing the Executive by Amadeo Bordiga (November 30, 1922)
- The Democratic Principles by Amadeo Bordiga
- Communist Organization and Discipline by Amadeo Bordiga
- The Trotsky Question by Amadeo Bordiga
- Interest and Principal: Arguments Drawn from the Operations of the Bank of France by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
- Interest and Principal: A Loan is a Service by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
- Interest and Principal: The Origin of Ground Rent by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
- Interest and Principal: The Circulation of Capital, Not Capital Itself, Gives Birth to Progress by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- The Nature and Destination of Government by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
- Parliamentary Isolation by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- What is Government? What is God? by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- Dilema: Red or White by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- The Philosophy of Progress by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- The Extremes by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
- The Social Revolution Demonstrated by the Coup d’Etat of December 2, 1851 by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- Unanimity: Universal Consent by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- New Propositions Demonstrated in the Practice of Revolution by Joesph Pierre Proudhon
- Propositions: To Leave Behind Abstractions, Utopias, Systems, Doctrines, Theories and Empiricisms Of The Parties Schools And Sects by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
- “Questions eliminated by this organization” and “Revolutionary Practice by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- Notes on “How Business Goes on in France, and Why We Will Have War” by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- Relation of the State and Liberty, According to Modern Right by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
- The Theory of Taxation by Pierre Joesph Proudhon
- The Federative Principle and the Need to Reconstitute the Party of Revolution by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
Reading
The Holy Bible Douay-Rheims Version
Plan to Read
Self-Goverment In Industry by G.D.H Cole
Summa Contra Gentile Book 2
Summa Contra Gentile Book 3
The Completed Works of St.John of the Cross
Five Essays on Philosophy by Mao Zedong
Suggestions
Feel Free to Add
Relations
BASED 
The One True Church established by Jesus Christ. I’m so glad you made me who I am and I will continue to learn from your wisdom and teachings.
- Very based especially Valois’ variant of National Syndicalism. Truly the path to a Proletarian Nation.
- The great revolutionary who influenced National Syndicalism and polished socialism and completed it with the myth. His book Reflections on Violence and The Illusions of Progress are such great reads.
- The best form of monarchism in my opinion. It allows even the lowest ranked in society to become the monarch. Also is the more traditional version of monarchy in 
, 
, 
, and a bunch of other countries. It also gives people a better way to depose a bad monarch like Hamilton’s version of elective monarchy.
- Influential Founding Father of America. His ideas of pushing America to industrialize, and having a better military would’ve been great for early America. Also his prospal for an elective monarchy of sorts was really great.
- The idea of a people’s monarch is in the step in the right direction and you influenced my ideas of monarchism before I was socialist. Also your royal family is the more legitimate regardless of what the “legitimatists” say.
- Great leader and the one who saved the revolution in France. Your revolutionary-traditionalism like position is also respectable. Also I liked how you improved France’s relationship with the Catholic Church and ended the Cult of Reason. Also Napoleon III was based too and he’s underrated as a French leader imo
- You do deserve the honor of having the title The Father of Irish Syndicalism. Reading your works has taught more a bit more of Irish history. I liked that you became more religious later in life. You also died a hero for God and country. You were a great revolutionary hero.
Pretty based 
- You’re pretty based and your eventual opposition to fascism was awesome. You’re the better 3rd positionist but you should be more syndicalist and take the Valois-pill to aim towards a true Proletarian Nation. You should also drop the ethnic nationalism and replace it with a cultural nationalism to fully achieve the Pan-Hispanic ideas. Otherwise pretty based
- I really like some of your ideas and you had some influences on me before my shift to national syndicalist economics. You are the better variants of distributism. The only disagreement is within certain economic nowadays.
Fiumanism- I do have some appreciation for what you tried to achieve by implementing the first syndical state. I do like a good chunk of what is written in your constitution. However there are somethings that I don’t like that happened. The hedonism for example. I also don’t really like the civic religion thing either nor the anti-clerical positions either. However despite my disagreements it’s still pretty good overall. I know what you tried was messy but at least you tried to implement something new which I admire. Fiume O Morte!
Mixed
Leninism- Despite Sorel’s praise of your ideology I’m pretty mixed on your ideology. I do agree with what some Sorelians said about you that basically you were more Sorelian than Marxist. I’m still skeptical because of what happened to this and Bolshevism essentially failed. Also some of your revisions weren’t necessary. This had potential but political opportunism crushed it. Also your league of anti-theists was awful. You did have some nice takes on somethings though. Overall mixed leaning towards putting this bad.
Gramscianism- After reading a lot of your works and a good chunk of your prison notebook writing I can better rate
you. Your still somewhat Sorelian in parts even after your did your own thing. However I don’t agree with some of the more positive view of Jacobinism much but I can understand why you have the more nuanced position. I do find the cultural hegemony idea very interesting even though I don’t agree with all of its conclusions. I also found the philosophy section interesting despite the more idealist approach but it was interesting to read how you argued against actual idealism’s interpretation of Bendetto Croce and defended your position. I don’t agree with some of your arguments against syndicalism nor your communism. I still think you might have became more positive about Catholicism in areas had you lived to see it condeming fascism. I don’t necessarily agree with all of your conclusions but overall your work does give some good insight on various topics and even some positions you hold that I would argue are flawed still give an interesting insight. It just sucks that other Marxists took your ideas and flipped it on its head. Overall alright in areas.
- After reading all the works I could find that you’ve written I can finally rate you. Firstly I disagree with how you view wages, prices, and labor and Connolly’s position was more correct. Also it was crazy you basically tried him for economic heresy. I’m not a fan of your overly sectarian views but I do understand that we cannot be reformists but being overly secular can be a problem within a revolutionary movement and even other Marxists and revolutionary socialists agree to. Also the 
IWW was right to be more syndicalist overall. I disagree with your views on religion and it’s relation to socialism. Connolly’s position is yet again vindicated. Besides my criticism I do like SIUs and they do go with syndicalism very well I do admit. You did in ways helped pave the way what was to come later so I do respect you for that as well. I like the proletariat focus throughout your ideas too. Overall you’re okay despite my disagreements.
Bad 
- You’re meh but the reformism is a concern because you could just recreate a new bourgeoisie. Also some of your variants shouldn’t be so against trade unions and unionism.
- You betrayed the national syndicalist struggle by opting out class warfare and replacing it with class collaboration. Also your totalitarianism isn’t necessary and you take too much from Hegel because of Gentile even though some of the original fascists members weren’t even Hegelians. I question some of your continutity to 
Sorelianism too. Also 
De Ambris and other national syndicalists were right to oppose Mussolini’s regime. However I do recognize that later in life Mussolini did change and I hope he repented in his personal life despite my dislike for his political beliefs. Some of your variants are slightly better in some areas but the Hegelianism is still concerning and not optimal.
- You’re reformism made you sell out to the capitalists and is proof reformism doesn’t work because you just joined the bourgeoisie instead of fighting against them. Also some of your variants are literally 
social fascists if they are being honest with themselves.
- You’re not all what you’re made out to be. I almost fell for the illusion of your principals before reading more into Sorel. You still have the same problems as marxists and fascists which is the Hegelianism. However some of you aren’t bad due to not being red fascists. Unfortunately the ones who aren’t larpers are few and far between.
- You were right on somethings but not in the way most Marxists would interpret. Some of you are just German idealists in denial tbh. Your Hegelian persuasion isn’t good either which Sorel properly points out. This is also what causes the passivity in your framework. Also the Frankfurt school which is basically now it’s own thing is the most vile thing that you created. Religion will not be done away in any shape or form period.
Marxism-Leninism- This is a very misguided variation of socialism. Some branches understand that socialism can exist in one country but for whatever reason thinks socialist commodity production is a thing. There was one variation that that held socialism in one country and against commodity production but was suppressed and never really did much due to Stalin. It got the vanguard method right due to Lenin. However other aspects of its variants did economically awful and put the Soviet Union back for a while. A lot of its economic methods are flawed and now a good chunk are outdated. This ideology lost in the end for a reason. Also some variations led to worsing conditions for the proletariat. Also the Hegelian emphasis is bad too.
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism- From the few works I’ve read I understand the gist of this ideology. Even though you correct certain aspects of Marxism-Leninism like criticizing Kruschev or Stalin’s mistakes. This doesn’t provent it from falling short. This ideology still inherits problems it as it claims to be the successor of Marxism-Leninism. It also completely misunderstands the proletarian and peasant alliance by making them somehow equal despite their difference in interests. Socialism is primarily an industrial movement and this is made quite clear so this is a unnecessary addition to socialism. The peasants does have a role but it’s secondary as the interest of socialism is to advance the struggle for the proletarian class first and foremost.Also The centrally planned economy flaws are also inherited from Marxism-Lennism. Democratic centralism is a flawed understanding of party and union dynamic and historically has been proven to in the majority of the cases lead to the party controlling the line and not the people controlling the direction and creates a false sense of democracy. Also the claim if it is to seriously suggest it avoids false proletarian dictatorships then how does it explain Stalin? So logically it contradicts itself and therefore it is false. The Union and by extension the people shape the direction not this all knowing party which seems to reak of Blanquist understandings. Even though China protected the right to strike under Mao it did do enough to safeguard the people and put illusion of democratic support. This didnt stop Mao’s personality cult. It does rightly consider neo-colonialism as an insight but falls flat because it misapplies or intentionally leaves out other forms of neo-colonialism. The support of the Khmer Rouge also tarnishes its legacy under supposed Soviet Imperialism was eventually proven false by numerous scholars. This was one of the few cases the Soviets did right by supporting Vietnam’s intervention. Overall all this is a misguided variation of socialism that has some good insights but misapplies said insights.
Awful 
- You’re built on a bunch of false assumptions and premises. Your more recent variant 
is even worse than you. You also promise freedoms to people but you don’t fufill and used it to create the modern bourgeois.
- Your are responsible for most of the modern problems that a bunch of countries face today.
- Some of you have a rose tented view of the past and I used to be one of those types. I’m very skeptical about how some of you would achieve your goals. Also some of you can be pretty counterproductive.
- I’m not a fan of your philosophy. Your version of Christianity is also weird and heretical too. Your ideas have been a disaster for Western civilization especially your modernism.
The Gang
Appalachian Socialism- ACR Comrade. I don’t know much about Maoism other than it being similar to classical fascism in some areas and potentially closer to Sorelianism in certain areas too so I can’t comment much other than that. Otherwise it seems pretty good. However I would suggest reading more theory to solidify things more.
Rust-Belt Socialism- Great revolutionary comrade for the syndicalist struggle. You advocate for an authentic proletarian system that ties into the continuity of the nations of America. Your executive for life is basically the same with slight differences. I would like to mention that I’m not strictly anti-republican. There are good republics but why I’m more monarchial leaning in general is due to me understanding the wider context of the nations of America and our cultural heritage. I agree with the restructuring of state borders too! The only small disagreement is I’m skeptical of the ACP but I get it’s the only one of the few good socialist organization in America (at the present anyway). Besides my disagreements this is a great overall and I’m glad to have you as ally! We shall hold the line of Revolutionary Syndicalism for an America for the Proletariat!
Meridianism- I really can’t comment much on the LaRouche stuff because I don’t really know much about him. However I’m not a fan of the Marxist-Leninist position as I prefer a more syndicalist approach. I also view like a lot of syndicalist do that Soviet Union became a failed experiment. Not really a fan of Dugin and I don’t get the pro-East American mentality either. I do like the Christian socialism and the conservative socialism though. I have a lot to say about Stalin but mostly not good as he steered the Soviet Union in the wrong direction. I do like the left-wing nationalism and the Hamitlonism. I’m skeptical about state socialism. I like your cultural view for the most part. Despite my disagreements you’re still a good ally for a socialist America and it’s pretty good in areas. Also please study Stalin’s mistakes and I’d recommend reading into some syndicalists.
New Texan Socialism-The founder of the ASLG and great ally. Firstly I don’t really agree with national bolsheviks due to their conclusion primarily. However I do like the mention of Berth. I like the section on American socialism and it’s a really great read. I like the mention of the different between the Marx of 1891 and 1848. I like the economics break down. Also there are a lot of overlaps between your and my ideas. Like my Hamiltonian monarchy and your president for life. Also there are overlaps between your DeLeonism and my Connllyism. Also we both we a pan-American cooperation, ect. I disagree with a lot of the Marxist-Leninist positions nor do I agree with their conclusions as they have been proven to fail. There are somethings they did that worked but others not so much. Despite my disagreements you’re still a good ally.
Great
Pretty Good
Mixed
File:Langkasuka293.png Langkasuka's Ramblings-The section on the failures of the old monarchy is really good but I’d emphasize the bourgeoisie making the monarchy a puppet. I agree a lot with the Protestant Work Cult and Bourgeoisie Nationalism sections. Also a real nationalism can only exist if the workers are in control as Connolly outlined and stated there’s a different between selfish and selfless nationalism. I like that you agree with class struggle but classess must be overcome to liberate the working class. I disagree with Realpolitik analysis because pragmatism isn’t necessary in certain situations but still an interesting section. The Mandala and Rai system both are interesting however there were similar types of republics in the West. Specifically Italian republics and others could possibly be argued were similar to the types you mentioned. In the section about the Kodobatra system I’d argue the English model of law is the solution to your problems with civil /Roman law. As this model is better as it uses more common law than civil law but of course there are exceptions too as to make a sort of balance. However I suggest this influence strike a balance more suited to your nation. I agree with you criticism of Boworadet Rebellion but just like in the West with early stage revolutions it was bourgeoisie and you could say it was an extension of the old regime. To make things worse it wasn’t in the context of its nation. I’d suggest to fix this is by not looking to the past but to move forward and allow for revolutionary action that would be in your nation’s context. I really like section on gun ownership because without it it creates tyranny. I get what you’re trying to say in the intellectual mindset versus warrior mindset but I fully disagree with your conclusions because it doesn’t understand both need each other. A warrior dominated society will eventually devolve into might makes right and abond making an moral society. Sorel fixes these problems because he doesn’t advocate for a full blown warrior society that can be interpreted out Nietzscheanism instead he agrues through a moral violence that truly grasps how the two need each other. His whole work in “Reflections on Violence isn’t about senseless violence but rather just violence. My main concern is that the war dominated society won’t reflect moral and just violence. With the Senate and the chancellory has some good ideas but blood is not above action. The Praxis for the New Nusantara section as it mentions Gramsci and inspired methods however Khomeni’s regime is not good example because its a nothing more than reactionary regime that solely exists to be a thorn in the Middle East however it’s nowhere near as bad as Isreal. I do however get your point of his disciplinary action but it came at cost. Interesting that you propose an alternative to the LTV and it was an interesting read. The fiscal federalism as a proposed third position against capitalism and socialism is interesting but it massively misunderstands socialism. In reality fiscal federalism is a good pairing to socialism. Despite my minor disagreements with the human collective basis it is right on a lot of points. The section on the slop economic system is really good. I disagree with somethings on economic sufficiency as I believe a proper socialist system is the most sufficient. To fully achieve national palingenesis is to have your nation become a proletarian nation otherwise it won’t truly accomplish that goal. Socialism is the only way to truly create a free nation and to do otherwise would have poor results due to the fact other elements that would be against this rejuvenated nation and find there way to undermine it. The organic democracy section is good but the influence of the elites should be removed because the elites will try to move it towards something else because they have a different interest unless they are placated by the head of state otherwise they will redirect the nation to their own liking and not yours. Also shouldn’t there be re calls even in this non liberal democratic system? The coexistence between agriculture and industrialism is good I disagree that you practically state that there should not be way use tactics to lock out industry including the agrarian section. The tactic should be allowed because it can be a proper mechanism to push back against the state if it implements a tyrannical measure. The right to strike should never be infringed upon. The prison reforms you mentioned sound good as it strikes a balance without resorting to cruel or unusual punishment. Also the globalist nationalist group sounds interesting. I get your using an analogy to the Comintern and it’s not like the Comintern. However if find that to be a poor analogy to your goals. Why because historically the Comintern became an organization that eventually internationally dictated the communist party regardless and kicked out those who disagreed with them. I do like the naunce you give about Malaysia on what it should look like. Also yes in the long run it should be organized into a pan-national state to have full unity. It’s interesting you praise Suknarno for this but you dislike the United States. Why I bring it up because the United States is a pan-nationalist and civilization centric state. Sure it does have its problems but why do you dismiss it casually? If you want to better understand things why not understand other pan-national and civilization centric states. I understand the importance of folk incorporation into religion but there despite their differences in interpretation they should not be separated and instead be as one. Well yes the the fundamentalist are completely misguided as you stated. Yes this religion didn’t erase the old culture but transformed it. However I would say my main disagreement is on how Islam views unity which is different compared to Christianity. I would say that the way Islam views unity might be a reason fundamentalist try to make it something completely different like certain groups have done. My argument however is more aimed at fundamentalists but regardless of a religion certain fundamentalist are the ones who tear their religion apart the quickiest due to the lack of humility. A Christian example is how Protestantism created multiple denominations due to fundamentalist schisming from their Church due to some saying it was “too Catholic” or due to some minute detail they didn’t like. The Feminization section is interesting despite my disagreements on certain conclusions as complimentarianism would fix this problem. The Zombification section is great and this is the result of a consumerist dominated society. The servile state section is great. As a Christian I heavily disagree with the national jihad section as I view it misunderstanding how religious war should be like and it comes from a very different approach to it. I’m mixed on the resentment section as it is right on something and others not. In the long run the type of the resentment is harmful for civilization. The rational vs empirical mysticism is good. The petty moralism is good as it points out the flaws of consumerist morality and how you point out what real morality looks like. I do agree with some parts of your section on why everything is wrong. However the notion that there is no historical ancestral connection within America is simply incorrect. America is multiple nations bounded together in a union with a shared culture, tradition, and common interests of defense. We Americans are the descendants of Cavaliers, Roundhounds, Covenanters, and others joined together in this grand union. So the notion that America has not ancestral connection is ignorant in the context of the nations that make it up. America didn’t just pop out of a vacuum and has existed arguably before 1776. The hyper individualistic attitude arose because of later capitalism and the people forgetting what America actually is. Also the Weimar government failed due to how certain Western nations treated it which allowed bad actors to rise and make Germany into something it wasn’t. The identitarian positions are pretty iffy and miss the realties of the people. It get that if is to foster unity but it should be done by culture to prevent a hypothetical Yugoslavia type situation or other awful scenario. It also should respect the self determination of people are respect those who do not want to join this union. This pragmatic position will help potentially lead to them possibly joining this union. The just needs better considerations overall. The page is alright in areas
Bad
Energeneralism- For the most part you’re a typical reactionary. Just like I told Katheryne you don’t truly grasp nationalism. I do agree with your cultural positions for the most part. I’m not a fan of the economics either. Also in regards to socialism I guess Penty’s socialism was bad even though he supported distributism and your argument doesn’t really hold up because socialism is a wide ideology. For example a socialism subjected to Catholicism would be the best variant because it incorporates the truth into it and this isn’t contradictory. The class collaborationism isn’t good either. Also there is an argument you can make that a Catholic can uphold class conflict because it has existed before Marx even commented on it. I will say I do like your monarchy more than a limited one. The few positives bring this up.
Leonine Traditionalism- I don’t understand how reactionaryism can help America break from liberalism and uh wanting fedualism in America is going to be hard. Also I wish you’d mention American as nations gathered as one because that’s how historically we’ve viewed ourselves. Some aspects of integralism are good but it isn’t really realistic to apply to American. So the most practical way is having non secular idea of religious toleration. Economically it’s okay and the corporatist ideals are more practical to use than distributism even though distributism is okay in itself. The only way realistically for America to have a monarchy is in an elective manner and even then that’s a stretch due to how unware some people are of why America fought for its independence and some dont know it wasn’t necessarily anti-monarchy. The positive things bring this up.
Thalassosim- The monarchism is good but I don’t understand how reactionaryism will in the long term be able to counter act liberalism. The economics are eh. If you want a better corporatist model I’d suggest using a social corporatist model. However you should look more into syndicalism. Moderate totalitarianism is cringe you should instead use a more moderate authoritarian approach. I also like the the religious emphasis too. The few positives bring this up.
Very Bad
Second Artelordism- I disagree with your view on society. You claim to be future thinking but you disregard the civilization it’s built upon. You talk about thoughtfully planning things but yet you’re trying to build a house with no foundation. Traditions whether you like it or not are essential to civilization as a whole. Grand myths of folk tales can bring others together as well. Another thing is religions have influence on society and are very important too. You’re economic sections are okay but market aren’t really necessary and I’d suggest looking into decentralized planned system like syndicalism for example which is better than your type of market socialism. Also not a fan of the internationalism because it’s not even the beneficial kind. One of the few good things mentioned is environmental preservation and sustainability. I do like the federalism but I’m not sure about Zapista influences because I don’t know much about him. In regards to the comment on my executive for it is designed that way to have someone that’s clearly accountable unlike the maze of bureaucracy that you see in neoliberal governments. Also the for life isn’t a guarantee because it’s only allowed if on good terms which means the executive can be impeached. My executive is influenced by Hamilton if you were wondering. Protectionism is vital if you want to protect the community. The few good things bring this up.
Hollomeckism- The totalitarianism is cringe and the economics are eh. Also the reactionaryism isn’t good either. Also the weird neocon beliefs aren’t good either. The only positives are the anti-porn and the anti-liberalism.
Boltz Socialism- Since this doesn’t have much I’ll only go off of what you have so far. So you’re basically a type of social corporatist that’s progressive. The economics is alright but the culture values aren’t the best. I’ll update this once you add more to it.
Ander’s Poetry- This is very well written despite my disagreements. Firstly how can we truly move forward with not appreciating the traditions that built this grand civilization? It’s like saying how can you build a house without a foundation? I’m not a rose tinted glasses traditionalist instead I want to move forward with it. I’m not a fan of existentialist philosophy either. I do like your poetic argument against capitalism. Also I don’t get a lot of the xeno stuff. The positives I understand bring this up.
I don't have to answer questions, but I can say that you are great that you want to move forward, just accept the fact that "tradition" will not live forever and it needs to be updated somehow. 
Neo-Marshravenism- There isn’t as much on your page yet so I’ll only comment on a the few things you have on your page and the influences. You’re still Sorelian influenced whether you want to admit it or not. Mainly because the influence Lenin. Sorelians and some Marxists said Lenin was more of a Sorelian than a Marxist. Mariategui which you highly respect he agreed with the statement about Lenin I previously mentioned (Which is based actually). I’ve yet to look into Mao’s connection to Sorel but there is one too. You can’t deny Sorel’s importance and no he wasn’t a fascist or proto fascist like modern MLs or Marxist want to tell you. You speak about women’s liberation but have you actually read what Lenin commented on this? Just curious. Also the centralized planned economics aren’t that good but at least you emphasize the importance of worker councils. I like the vanguardism too btw. Also read Connolly to understand that nationalism can work with socialism. Also not every national syndicalist is a fascist. Also some natsynds are more consistent than MLs. I’m mixed about your anti-West position. With the few exceptions this seems to be a generic ML ngl. The few positives bring this up.I’ll also update this once you’ve added more.
Brimstone
Xenoanarchy- Despite how detailed you explained your ideas there is practically little I agree with. Stinerite philosophy no matter the implications is a horrid presumption for any base ideal. Also I’d suggest reading Sorel because he does a better job of explaining something Nietzsche did. Also Nietzscheans aren’t against morals and morality. That’s why I gave Sorel as an example to read because he has some influence from Nietzsche but is very moralistic. Also using egoistic philosophy isn’t the best to critique religion and Christianity either. Also yeah the anarchy thing isn’t going to work in practice. The so called “sucessful” anarchist experiments like in Catalonia abonanded their principles and it devolved into barbarism. If anything Pestaña was proven right with anarchist it Spai and no he wasn’t a reformist like some anarchist dubiously claim. I don’t get the anti-civilization position either. Ultimately these ideas prove the Chesterton was right about this. Chesterton said, “ You've got that eternal idiotic idea that if anarchy came it would come from the poor. Why should it? The poor have been rebels, but they have never been anarchists; they have more interest than anyone else in there being some decent government. The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all. Aristocrats were always anarchists. The only agreement that we have is against capitalism and liberalism. However I see your conclusion ending horribly into nothing but barbarism due to your metaphysical presumptions due to it quite literally becoming every man for themselves.
M48ism- Absolutely brimstone and doesn’t actually understand socialism nor some of his own beliefs. Also really hard to take seriously.
The Worst
Brother Hydra’s Thought- This is crazy that this is more than likely not a joke ideology. Firstly one cannot be a reactionary and a fascist this is a contradictory position. Fascism comes from a revolutionary background primarily revolutionary syndicalism and is influenced by a lot of scientific and revolutionary socialism. Also one cannot be a racialist and fascist because fascist don’t believe race is important. To a classical Italian fascist there is no difference between an Italian Catholic, Jewish Italian, and Secular Italian because they’re all united by nationality. You also clearly don’t understand national syndicalism either as it exists prior to fascism and it influenced it. Also yes I know not all national syndicalists are fascist as I am an actual national syndicalist. Also Evola ain’t a fascist his “superfascism” isn’t fascist but a reactionary ideology separate from it. Also national socialism is awful ideology the failed and was solely built on war and actually hated Western civilization and wanted to replace Christianity with an Eastern occultist racialist cult. It’s “Christianity” was a place holder. National socialism doesn’t even care for the worker. As by Nazi they believe the bourgeoisie should be the master over the proletariat. Also the against race mixing thing is idiotic because there is no pure race. Another thing the White Isrealites were heretical Christians who actually despised Catholics and other Christians and they believed the Anglo-Saxon specifically was God’s chosen people and believed only Germanics primarily Anglo-Saxons were white so. This group isn’t Christian and rejects a lot of essential Christian beliefs. Esoteric beliefs cannot coexist with Catholicism either. Mysticism however can exist with it and that is different. Even though it’s not a finished page this page is just about aesthetics with no substance. I heavily suggest you actually read political theory to make something better than whatever this horrible ideology is.
Martinianismo- You aren’t a fascist blud which I don’t have a problem with that because I’m not the biggest fan of it. What I do have a problem is that you claim something that you’re not. What you actually are in my opinion is a reactionary modernist who just like fascist aesthetics. Franco and Degrelle aren’t fascists btw. Also Evola’s “super fascism” is a separate ideology that is reactionary and his defense statement when accused of being fascist when under trial the statment wmore accurately translates to above fascism. Also fascism cannot be reactionary or support reactionary socialism. Also I don’t like the totalitarianism much because it goes beyond the scope of how the state should be. Also absolute monarchism isn’t that good either. Your sections on ethnicity and race are absolutely awful. Also you support the Ustashe. You need to repent of your beliefs and and touch grass. This is a disguting ideology
N.Broism- Already I dislike your stance on command economics as it doesn’t really transfer the means of production to the proletariat A decentralized planned economic system is better suited for these aims. Also Pol Pots regime isn’t communist either. I get some parts of the taxation and welfare but it could be expanded to better clarify. The section on religion is awful and completely misses socialism’s relation towards religion. Even Marxists would heavily disagree with. The notion to being open to genocide goes against the system you claim to support
Again you miss the point of socialism again and you actions against LGBTQ people is only going to make things worse off. Instead you should help them better themselves. The ethnicity and nationality section is completely odd and is at odds with Marxism as well. Totalitarianism in the way you view it is different than the ML notion. The way you describe abolition of family is different from the typical Marxist interpretation.
Opposing gun rights and claiming to be a socialist is very strange. The philosophy you claim to support asceticism is also contradictory to what you’ve stated prior. The reason is you violently oppose any people the disagrees with you. Another thing is you talk about being above the weak which completely misses your philosophical. In conclusion this is neither socialism or communism be an excuse to justify insanity. You aren’t a Marxist in any sense as welll.
Larp Tier
M48Brioism- Weird larpComments
- Sorry for editing in your page itapi I am mizo I wanted to say hi (if you want to add me on discord it's @29322__
- - Thanks for apologizing. Oh hey Mizo. I don’t use discord anymore or social media much)
- I miss you so much Itapi
- - You too fren
- - Yay it’s back up!
- - I have lost my access to my PCBA account, can we discuss about stuffs here from now on?
- - That’s suck to hear your lost your account. Sure I don’t mind. Also could you clarify your identitarian view so I don’t strawman your position because if I’m correct it sounded very cooked ngl 🥀 Not a fan of racialism no matter how “nice” its dressed because it goes against aims of not only national unity but civilizational unity.
- On my identitarian views, I’d say skin color isn’t the sole factor of what makes race what it is, but rather more so blood inherited from people within the cultures that exist in each different environments and evolved from said environments influenced by geography, language, history, religion, and such. The reason why the Natives of the New World significantly decreased in numbers when the Spaniards settled there was more so that the said Natives had different biological development compared to Europeans, thus making the Natives lack the immunity towards the plague that the Spaniards or Europeans had developed immunity towards (thanks to the bubonic plague that plagued Europe centuries before Columbus’ exploration of the New World). Also, I am less of a settler-colonialist and more of a racial-pluralist when it comes to diplomacy, since stabilizing the war-torn third world nations by promoting nationalism in those areas will reduce immigration as well as bringing immigrants back to their home countries will resolve the brain-drain problem so that those exploited nations will be able to economically and socially develop. Different people are better off living in different environments given their history of biological evolution influenced by environment for millennia. As for my irredentism towards Madagascar and Suriname, it’s more so because those place have many people who have Austronesian DNA caused by immigration that happened centuries ago which is irrelevant towards today’s immigration crisis. And for Chinese and Indian disapora in the Malay archipelago, I’d say they can be assimilated, if they’re loyal to the nation. The problem is that in Malaysia, the said diaspora refuses to assimilate, causing this tension of race war. My solution is that they should assimilate and mix with the Malays and if they refuse to they should leave.
- - Even the blood thing is pretty superficial. For example not all people that are categorized white are similar. My criticism is how those tyes here and they want to erode the unique peoples here. It also has made my region in particular look bad if yk yk. My country is different that’s why I’m iffy. It is an actual country and more real especially one that ends with real. I get the thing with the Spanish and the natives but it simplified what happened eventually the strength of both created their distinctive culture not in the liberal multicultural sense but interculturally. Okay but is you racial-pluralism really going to solve this? I’m pretty skeptical of it to be honest. Race is pretty vague so how would this work. Some of that has truth but I don’t know how much of it actually does a difference. Even if they have people in Madagascar that are similar to you that’s a pretty weak justification. Those people are of Madagascar because they follow what was required for them to become part of it. On China and India that depends but if there’s no historic claim that’s weak regardless of the diaspora. It’s just iffy in my view. If Malaysia doesn’t want to be a part of this it should have the self determination to do so and it would prevent a race war or any war. I get your end goal for unity but even that propsal has problems. The only way it will work if it is done through some culture nationalist context to prevent a free for all or other potential nightmares. I get some views but in my opinion it misses realities between nations and peoples. You did clear some things up but I’m still largely skeptical and pretty much against it still. It just needs to be worked better imo.
- - 🫂
- - 🫂
- - I have a question why do you like Cromwell? He was mostly bad for Britain. I will say however at least at the end he finally realized later the real enemy is parliament. Wished that King Charles I didn’t have to die for him to realize this. Also yes Charles I was unjustly executed and he committed no crimes other than those made up by Cromwell’s dirty dogs.
- - He did what he had to do, and yes he was against the levellers too. And the current British monarchy deserves nothing more than a Jacobin treatment for enabling the current messes that the British parliament has been setting up for 200 years, that and combined with the fact that the Jacobite pretenders today are barely relevant in the British politics outside Scottish separatism.
- On a side note I think the Bonapartist or July Monarchy model would be the best for Britain as an alternative to this mess of a ceremonial monarchy.
- - Not really because he alienated a lot of people and the parliament he supported banned Christmas and this even went into effect in the colonies. Yeah fair but did he really need to do what he did in Ireland? He reaped what he sowed. Also uh Cromwell was also considered a proto-Whig if I recall. Really? Absolutism of the other side is just as bad. You’ve read Sorel right? Then if so, you’d understand why that’s just as bad and simply naive. To reiterate the Ancien Regime was just as bad as the Jacobin one. The current British monarchy is simply a prisoner to parliament so even if they did go against parliament it wouldn’t do much. The last great king was Charles II because he actually had power. Yeah and that’s because of the parliament again. In reality Britain is a crowned republic for now anyway. Honestly Scottish separatism would be great only if it weakned parliament.
- Yes but in a more revolutionary context to prevent it from becoming stagnant. It should also not be the Windsors but someone else that has legitimate backing
- - Btw how ideologically similar am I do you think to
him?
- - There is some small overlap between you and Cheese but otherwise pretty different.
- - 🫂
- - 🫂
- - Are you going to make a relation section? If so could you add me please?
- - Soon but I don’t have much time for relations nowadays.
- - That’s fine was just curious is all.
- - On a side note I’ve actually pretty much made a sub ideology for my page just adding here. Another thing is do you have any reading suggestions?
- - Are you familiar with Werner Sombart? I think you’d be interested in him.
- - The name sounds familiar and thanks for the recommendation.
- - Do you think my ideal regime would last longer or be a better place to live than his?
- - I would say your’s would be better to live in because his is too Jacobin for my taste. Now on how long it would last I’d say your’s but only slightly. However that doesn’t necessarily mean I would 100% like it just noting that it is less bad than his. I would like it more if strikes were not supressed or this changed over time.
- How close to being an is
this guy?
- - Not close because that guy is closer to modern neo-liberal thought in areas and is a democratic socialist. While the other is the realization of Neo-Jacobin liberalism as it wants to move beyond classical liberalism. That guy is closer to Lassalleanism than fascists are in areas too
N.Brioism - Add me
- - Added….
- I influenced you?? How
- - Reading the Guy Debord work actually helped me understand some of your ideas better. Also you made me think more about my anti-reactionary traditionalist perspective and it somewhat made it more fleshed out than it was I suppose.
- ↑ The LeftUnity is according to the original Political Compass test and the LibLeft is according to SapplyValues
- ↑ In the non-Marxist sense specificaly from my Proudhonian influces.This term also originates from Proudhon and not Marx. What is Property? by Pierre Joseph Proudhon
- ↑ He formed his own party in 1933 and broke with the anarcho-syndicalists of Spain.
- ↑ To replace the outdated NATO model and to cut ties with problematic Western nations.
- ↑ It is not diplomatically against all eastern nations but rather those that have questionable practices in other countries such as
China or harsh fanatic regimes like the current regime 
in Syria.
- ↑ Not in an anti-socialist manner but rather a revolutionary-traditionalist interpretation of Gramsci
- ↑ I have some respect for it due to it creating the first syndicalist state
- ↑ This comes from my minor influence of
Bordgia specifically his opposition to anti-fascism and this influenced position is something I’ve held before I became a socialist
- ↑ I’m against hardline blinded anti-communism because of its anti-intellectual nature. I also dislike communism but the hardline anti-intellectual anti-communists are basically the right-wing version of
Antifa.
- ↑ I’m against this because it’s incompatible and contradictory to socialism plus it’s a very flawed system too imo.
- ↑ As in opposition to reformist socialism as its proven to fail and it becomes passive to the bourgeoisie.
- ↑ In the sorelian sense and not in the
reactionary sense
- ↑ Note this is different from
Hegelian Dialectics
- ↑ The Virginia Cavalier. Virginia Encyclopedia This encyclopedia entry talks about the Cavalier influence on colonial Virginia
- ↑ Benton on Retiring Rufus King from the United States Senate 1825
- ↑ Prince Henry of Prussia Was Almost a Monarch of the United States by Todd Neikirk
- ↑ Alexander Hamilton’s Vision of an American Monarchy by Madeline Clarke
- ↑ Hitler’s Economy: A False Mircacle by TheJayLino
- ↑ [1]-The Nazi Fiscal Cliff: Unsustainable Financial Practices before World War II by Parker Abt
- ↑ Nazism vs Fascism - What’s the difference? By The JayLino
- ↑ Stalinism Unmasked: An Exposé of Stalin’s Total Failure by TheJayLino
- ↑ Why Communism in Albania Failed by TheJayLino
- ↑ Hugh Mercer-Mount Vernon
- ↑ Jacobites in America in the 18th Century by Edward St.Germain
- ↑ This is the inspiration for the meme where Mussolini tells Gramsci to read Bordiga
