The first ‘Manifesto of National Bolshevism’ was not created in Russia by a Dugin or Limonov but an exiled German. Indeed copies of this manifesto - the ultimate fruit of many informal groupings uniting disaffected Communists and National Socialists unhappy with Hitler - were smuggled into Germany on the very day Hitler assumed power.
And whilst I can understand and appreciate the current geopolitical significance of Dugin’s ‘Eurasianism’ in relation to U.S. imperialism and supremacism, I see an absolutely crucial yet missing economic dimension to it – and to his ‘Fourth Political Theory’. (See my Questions to Dugin on ‘The Fourth Political Theory’)
Indeed I know of more knowledgeable individuals and groups in both America and England who recognise the nature of this missing economic dimension than in all of Eurasia or the entire Eurasianist movement (...and unfortunately more also than in most supposedly ‘Marxist’ or even ‘National Bolshevik’ parties). These include Ellen Brown and the Public Banking movement in the U.S. and www.positivemoney.org in the U.K.
Most importantly however, if I myself was an American National Bolshevik, I would not only take up the struggle against the totalitarian grip of the banking system and money-power over the entire U.S. media and political system, not to mention its foreign policy.
In addition, and irrespective of its theoretical origins, as an American National Bolshevik I would also take immense pride in the fact that America was the first and in some ways the only country in the modern era to have ever attempted to implement in practice what I see as be the central political-economic plank of a National Bolshevik revolution.
For this was summed up no better than by Abraham Lincoln:
"The Government should create, issue, and circulate all the currency and credits needed to satisfy the spending power of the Government and the buying power of consumers. By the adoption of these principals the taxpayers will be saving immense sums of interest. Money will cease to be master, and become the servant of humanity.”
Indeed I believe one could go so far as to argue that, at a certain stage of its early history, America was the only country to have actually and successfully embodied and implemented this necessary economic foundation for National Bolshevism.
In this way - even only temporarily and until sabotaged by the British and the Bank of England - true prosperity was created – in contrast to the massive austerity now being imposed on the majority (‘Bolsheviki’) of Americans (and Brits, and Brazilians etc. etc.)
Indeed visiting British parliamentarians were surprised and even envious to see this prosperity. Lincoln on the other hand was shocked by the sheer scale of the misery and wealth inequality he saw in a Britain ruled by and in the grip of the Bank of the England – who were instrumental in financing King George.
You will see from all my writings and sites – in particular www.nationalbolshevism.org and www.nationalpeoplesparty.org.uk and also A People’s Monetary Manifesto – that I understand the basic battle of National Bolshevism is ‘the people versus the banks’. Similarly, I see its single most important aim as that of freeing all nations from neo-feudal debt-slavery to the big international banks – almost of which, including the Fed and other so-called ‘national’ or ‘central banks’ – are actually privately owned banking cartels (and JFK was assassinated just after signing a Bill that would have effectively reigned in and renationalised the Fed).
There is no other way to free nations from debt-slavery and debt-servitude except through the way Lincoln proposed, i.e. the re-nationalisation of banking and of money creation in particular. For in contrast to Tea Party myths and propaganda money creation is not something governments do by ‘printing money’ (every dollar printed being actually a debt to the private banking cartel that cleverly disguises itself as ‘national’ just through the word ‘Federal’).
And since the de-regulation of the financial system – as well as the development of new means of production in the form of Information Technology - it is now private banks that have had total freedom to create money from nothing – simply be keying it into computer accounts electronically. This is fraud and counterfeiting on a massive scale.
As a result it is now the private banking system and not national governments that have a complete monopoly on the creation of money – which they create as debt, earn interest on, and profit from selling on or ‘leveraging’ – and of course use for their own interests and those of Wall Street, and not for the people and to promote the real ‘Main Street’ economy. For - contrary to mainstream propaganda - if all debt, individual and national were paid off in any capitalist country today there would simple be no money at all.
You will see that I use the scythe of a new Monetary and National Marxism to hammer away at this issue of private versus national money-creation in all my sites and writings on National Bolshevism – for without addressing it I see National Bolshevism as being far too vague, eclectic or ethnically focussed in its aims – a bit like a New Right version of the Left-Wing Occupy Movement - or worse still, an adolescent form of neo-Stalinist National Socialism - not hitting or even aiming at the single most important target of class struggle in the current era: namely the grip of global finance capitalism and the total loss of national and popular sovereignty which is its result.
What’s the point, for example, of attacking something vague called ‘liberalism’ or ‘democracy’ but not focussing on a neo-liberal economics that has has been used without any pretence of liberal democracy – or under its disguise - to destroy all nation states that had anything like a central bank that was a genuine national people’s bank (e.g. Iraq, Libya and Syria).
What too is be the point, as some NazBols do, of promoting some form of ‘cool’ neo-Stalinist or neo-Nazi iconography and totalitarianism - when both Britain and the U.S.A. are already effectively one-party states ruled by a single, monolithic and totalitarian power – the Big Banks and financial elites.
A note here on the so-called ‘materialism’ of Marx. Marx’s focus on economics was aimed precisely at challenging and transcending a capitalist economic order which measures everything only according to its material, monetary or ‘market’ value – and for which all deep human and spiritual values count for nothing. Like Marxism itself, what might be called National or Monetary Marxism however is in no way ‘materialistic’ - and certainly not in the crude and also essentially capitalist sense that Marx himself so acutely criticised in his Theses on Feuerbach. National Bolshevism does not replaces but recognises in Marxisma deeply spiritual as well as political movement of opposition to crude materialism – and to Mammonism in particular - what Marx himself called ‘The Monotheism of Money’. Capitalism, as Marx pointed, has always rested on the worship of the totally invisible and immaterial ‘spirit’ of exchange value, whilst at the same time serving to eradicate the soul of all authentic spiritual cultures and traditions that come in the way of its new God – the God of Money.
Yet not even Marx himself could have anticipated how the development of ever less material forms of money - electronic money and credit in particular - would allow finance capitalism and its ‘fictitious capital’ to become far more destructive of industry and ruinous of whole economies than he ever imagined it could be – though Friedrich Engels suspected Marx might have changed his mind had he lived longer:
“Engels noted that Marx would have emphasized how finance remained largely predatory had he lived to see France’s Second Empire and its “world-redeeming credit-phantasies” explode in “a swindle of a magnitude never witnessed before.” But more than any other writer of his century, Marx described how periodic financial crises were caused by the tendency of debts to grow exponentially, without regard for growth in productive powers. This self-expanding growth of financial claims, Marx wrote, consists of “imaginary” and “fictitious” capital inasmuch as it cannot be realized over time. When fictitious financial gains are obliged to confront the impossibility of paying off the exponential growth in debt claims – that is, when scheduled debt service exceeds the ability to pay – breaks in the chain of payments cause crises. “The greater portion of the banking capital is, therefore, purely fictitious and consists of certificates of indebtedness (bills of exchange), government securities (which represent spent capital), and stocks (claims on future yields of production).”A point arrives at which bankers and investors recognize that no society’s productive powers can long support the growth of interest-bearing debt at compound rates. Seeing that the pretense must end, they call in their loans and foreclose on the property of debtors, forcing the sale of property under crisis conditions as the financial system collapses in a convulsion of bankruptcy.”
(extract from fom Marx to Goldman Sachs by Michael Hudson)
In inter-war Germany both Hitler and the Nazis and Lenin and the Communists were aware of the rapacious and destructive nature of usury, compound interest and predatory speculation and finance capitalism in general. Unfortunately however, the Rothschilds had given Hitler – himself rabidly anti-Marxist and anti-Bolshevik – an all-too easy way to propagandistically identify banksters solely with Jews and Jewry. Yet even in the ‘Marxist’ Soviet Union and other ‘socialist’ states however, the principle of nationalised money creation was implemented only in a very complex and highly indirect way – in contrast to Lincoln’s very direct way. Later of course, the Big Lie that national money creation necessarily leads to hyper-inflation was invented – when in reality is was private speculation that created the hyper-inflation in Germany.
And to prevent inflation nationalised money creation can be limited by a national monetary commission. This would decide how much new debt- and interest-free national money will be put directly into the real economy each year – through a national people’s bank – and with a national people’s government there only to decide what it should be spent on. Such a ‘National Marxist’ monetary economic policy has the potential to completely free every nation in the world from poverty – which is entirely created and sustained by debt to international and commercial banks.
Unfortunately those individual economists or pressure groups who know this and advocate this solution as a form of ‘monetary reform’ totally underestimate the struggle against it that would be waged – with all the money at their disposal - by the Big Banks. They do not see it will require a revolution and a dictatorship of the 99% to suppress the ruling financial elites or 1% - in other words that only their arrest and not merely protest against them will work.
This is where the revolutionary spirit of National Bolshevism has its place – as did the revolutionary struggle for national independence of the American people – which was dependent on monetary independence. It is in this context I would like to strongly emphasize that what is summarised here - and written about at greater length in my many other writings on National Bolshevism - is not simply some idiosyncratic viewpoint of my own which I am seeking to foist upon National Bolsheviks – least of all in the U.S.A.
On the contrary, my perspective is an appeal to your American national pride, comrades – for it takes as its cue the words and deeds of many of your greatest (albeit mostly assassinated) American statesmen and Founding Fathers. Just a few of many quotes you may know to show what I mean...