I open this thread to talk about this weird form of politics. If someone doesn't know the Thrid Position is a mixture of left-wings views with right-wing ones, a example of this could be the National-Bolsheviks whose ideology is a mixture of Stalinism with a strong Nationalism. For me is realy a evolution of both fascism and comunism, because they share a lot of points of view that it woul be normal to someone to unite both ideologies and put them together.

There are some more views in the third position such as the National-Anarquism (that one I really don't get), National Sindicalism, Strasserism (A leftist National Socialism it could be called), etc.

So, what do you think about this? Is maybe a really revolutionary idea? Or maybe are simply fascists changing their fasces for red stars?

PS: Sorry for my lousy English

You'll have to excuse me because I'm drunk, but it is an interesting topic. I think National Bolshevism (under that name) is a recent development, and clearly to me isn't really quite the same as that centrist Third Position kind of thing, even if it's derived from it. I haven't really seen any interviews with National Bolshevists or read any such literature.

I think 'Third Position' to me mixes that kind of "appealing to the masses" with opposition to the sort of egalitarianism seen in the far-left, whilst at the same time appealing to proletarian sensibilities.

Another way of seeing it is that one might see Soviet-style leftism and imperialist right-wingery as big globalist drives (both will accuse eachother of it but they're no better or worse than eachother), and the Third Position being against that grain, going for a more nationalist approach. It is sort of left-oriented in it's collectivist "for the good of the race" vibe. One thing that concerns me though is the frequent reference to the Jews/Zionism as the source of all suffering, it is a simplification of the globalist vs nationalist/localist dichotomy. Third Position ideology to me is best and most reasonable when it espouses mutual nationalism rather than supremacy, subjugation or scapegoating any actual race.

Don't take my word on any of that though, as I have a very limited reading on it.

Also I think the nearest to Third Position the Nazis ever got was in it's early stages, as in the SA. Most of that leftist element was purged in the Night of the Long Knives, IIRC.

Well, some people in th early stages of nazism were known as the beefsteak nazis, brown on the outside red in the insade. Even Goebbels was a comunist hiself.

Right know I'm doing some reading oline about strasserism and the so called leftist nazism, and I'm finding it a very interisting idea.

As for the Thrid Position even I know some of this people who thinks that racism is bad, and of course they are not racist, but fascism isn't racis, at least in its basis (Mussolini said: I don't care if he is black as long as he speaks Italian) not as national socialism.

Fascism is more of a means than an end, a sort of high-authoritarianism. To a far-leftie though, fascism is synonymous with National Socialism and vice-versa.

Also with the racism and Third Position thing, it doesn't necessarily have to espouse supremacism but it is mostly pro-separatism I would imagine, as they believe it's ultimately best for everyone IIRC. I think you can break down the nuances in Third Position a lot over the degree of authoritarianism and the significance of race and all that.

What on earth does "IIRC" stand for?



Could you provide a source?



I can not think of a single time wherein forced separation of groups along racial lines did not result in the blatant exploitation of one group by another.

the third position appeals to a lot of people.

I think the only reasonw hy such a position exists is because of the utter destruction that Nazism put fascism through with their exploits.

Third positionism is fundamentally fascism without the name -- read Mussolini's doctrine of fascism and you will get it.

That, or it vaguely speaks of populism in a sense of combining these values.

It is also vaguely funny because the more moderate politicians become and the more ways that they want things it can begin looking eerily like third positionism (e.g. Obama's call for a national citizien's security force).

I think that I expressed myself badly, Goebbles is known to be criticised by the rightwinger of the NSDAP for being too "red". Anyway here's a pic:



There it says: Rally of the communist of the KPD and the NSDAP in Saalbau of Fiedrischain in 1931. The communist leader Walter Ulbricht (standing up) speaks to the crowd. The firs one on the left (sitting down) is the local leader (Gauleitier) Goebbels.

@Verv

I dont think that Third Position is fascim without the name, just because is such an umbrella term that you can have almost everything under it

I'm sure the more historically astute among us are aware of events such as the Night of the Long Knives, where there was a purge of left-leaning elements of the Nazi party.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

I often have a suspicion that the left-leaning aspects of the Nazi party (namely the SA) are played down by ideologues because it contradicts a polarised view of politics.



If I Recall Correctly



Forced separation, neither can I. I don't necessarily condone it either. However, white separatist groups have occasionally met with Nation of Islam (black separatists) and established rapport by agreeing that mutual separation would be in everyone's interests. Not that the majority shared this point of view.

Celtiberian, thanks for the information.



It is true that White supremacists often due support Black separatist groups, but I doubt they could continue a long working relationship with each other.



Played down? Their role in Hitler's machine was minimal; they were purged before Hitler did anything too dramatic. Mentioning their role in the NAZI party of 1939 on is like mentioning the Left Opposition in the Soviet Union after the year 1933.

I was hoping more of an argument than your simple personal speculation on the issue. These two separatist groups are different to the extent that no, they would not be able to establish a "working relationship" with eachother, hence that they agreed separation would be best in the first place! Separation was one of the few things they agreed on, so surely differences aren't problematic! Think about this, the Muslim in the middle-east despises the decadent Western lifestyle, and the Western man dislikes the extreme social conservatism of the Muslim, so those two people, intuitively, are best where they are, no?

Bear in mind I'm not supporting "let's weed out this genetic element from our gene pool" but cultural parallellism intuitively, in my humble opinion, is best for us all and respects all cultures.

And with the Nazi thing I am not supporting National Socialism either, only wishing to elucidate political ideology rather than polarise it.



Well the Nazis as a force around the world generally did oppose communism strongly. But that's not to say that the Nazis weren't collectivist in manner. Even coins bore the slogan "Public good before private good", and they did gain a strong popularity among the working-folk though, whom they claimed to save from the exploitation of finance capitalism, no? What I'm saying is the Nazis weren't technically "far-right" and that saying so counts as a polarisation of politics in my view. They surely weren't free-marketers, were they? Real "far-right" people to me are people like Pinochet, who defended the free-market at any cost. Of course, the Nazis weren't totally opposed to a little privatisation, so that medium stance places them in the middle, economically. Hence the term "Third Position".

Also I don't know why you capitalised the word Nazi, just asserting "because they're the goddamn NAZIS, MAN!! No way are those fuckers left-wing!" doesn't cut it, if that's why. Unless you mistakenly thought that it was an acronym, which, just on a trivial sidenote, it isn't.