Analyzing Karl Otto Paetel’s National Bolshevik manifesto

by Pierre Tru-Dank

This book analysis will dissect each chapter of The National Bolshevik manifesto into detailed sections for examination:

Nationalism

• The Task

• Ten Years of ‘National Bolshevism’

• Young Nationalism

• War and Peace

• The Nation as the Highest Value

• Marxism and the National Question

• Prussia as a Principle

• The Class Struggle as a Nationalist Demand

• Versailles

• Revolutionary Foreign Policy

• The New Faith

Opposition to Fascism

• Reformed National Socialism?

• The Fascist Mistake

• The Historical Error of the NSDAP

• Council State or Corporate State?

Socialism

• Nationalist Communism

• The Face of National Communism

• Why not KPD?

• Happiness or Freedom?

• Socialism

Position on The Peasantry

• Rural Revolution?

• The Peasant Question in Germany

Nationalism

The section titled "Nationalism" will delve into the prominent nationalist themes within the book. Karl Otto Paetel's brand of nationalism differed significantly from the conventional bourgeois nationalism that sought to preserve all aspects of the nation's historical legacy. Instead, Paetel's nationalism centered on a rejuvenation of the nation through a palingenetic rebirth, where the proletariat's new leadership would supplant that of the bourgeoisie. Acknowledging Germany's status as a debt colony under the Versailles and Young treaties, Paetel's nationalist agenda aimed to offer a homeland to those who were without one.

“Germany has to fight today for the freedom of its unfree-born children, for a future home for its homeless, for the future hopeless generations.

But not only that. In German territory will the vision of our century be shaped. Here shall the formal principle of Mitteleuropa* have to be proven. The fight for the sovereignty of the German lands will decide the fight for Europe’s future, the rise or fall of the West. In German hearts and German minds today the forces of the East are already feuding with the principles of Western thought. The solution will have to be: to find one’s own principle.

In the body of the German people [deutschen Volkskörper], within the German territories, the decisive battle will be fought between world mercantilist economy and socialist statehood. Here the class struggle between proletarian dynamism and bourgeois self-reliance will be fulfilled.” – Karl Otto Paetel, The Task, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this instance, Paetel separates the evolving German national perspective from Western ideologies and establishes it on a proto-Duginist stance. This position asserts that a homeland must define its own essence in response to Western modernity, harmonizing the national existence and historical traditions with the progression towards the future. 

“The task that lies before the young generation of political Germans is one of decades. To solve it means giving a new, creative meaning to that old misused concept of the German imperial world-mission; that on the third attempt (Moeller van den Bruck’s expression already carries this meaning) the German nation-building which was unsuccessful in the Ottonenreich and Staufferreich, as well as in the Bismarckian Reich, will become a reality.

To break away from this task means gambling away the future of Eternal Germany, shifting the Switzerlandization of the German Volk into its final stage.

The name of the task is, becoming a Nation.

Its guarantor is called, Socialism.

The path to it: Revolution.

Only those called to this task from within will understand what it is about, alone and above all: to open the door to tomorrow for a proletarianized Volk; to break all its bonds – chaos, adversity, affirmation of victimhood, class, estate, granting it personal happiness – in order that reality for the German people shall be:

The nation as the highest value.”  - Karl Otto Paetel, The Task, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Here, he outlines the goal of German National Bolshevism as establishing a unique form of German statehood that surpasses the Ottonian, Stauffian, and Bismarckian Reichs. He highlights the danger of the "Switzerlandization" of the German Volk, pointing to Switzerland as a nation where diverse groups lacking a shared ethnic origin coexist. National Bolshevism's objective is for Germany to transform into a nation safeguarded by socialism through a revolutionary process, reflecting Karl Otto Paetel's revolutionary nationalist stance rather than adhering to orthodox Marxism. Having discussed the mission of National Bolshevism, let's delve into its origins and political history in Germany.

“Wherever in Young-Germany today the deathly stillness of official politics is alarmed by an underground tremor – wherever the unconditionality of nationalist youth calls into question the old values of their fathers, over whose funeral-shrouds the elderly wail with spread hands, registering the (still emotional) socialist demand of the national-revolutionary young bourgeoisie – wherever the proletariat seems to recognize that only the German eagle on red flags will create a Fatherland for them which bears the national fervour of those without a Homeland - there does one see in the bourgeois newspapers a watchword:

National Bolshevism!

But what historical fact first arose in Germany to trigger the political movement meant by that phrase?” – Karl Otto Paetel, The Years of National Bolshevism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

During the Weimar period in Germany, "National Bolshevism" was coined by the bourgeois media to depict the merging of a youthful national-revolutionary intellectual faction from the petite bourgeoisie with the proletarianized, stateless individuals aligned with the KPD mass party. While the term's inception is now understood, it is essential to examine the historical events that propelled the movement forward and identify the key figures behind its development.

“The first truly National Bolshevist document was the ‘Political Testament’ of Count Brockdorff-Rantzau, in which he set down the belief that a German radical socialism must take in hand, beneath the banners of socialism, a policy of freedom against Western imperialism and capitalism.” - Karl Otto Paetel, The Years of National Bolshevism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Although this document may have been among the earliest manifestations of National Bolshevism, there exist historical events that align with the spread and growth of National Bolshevism:

“Brockdorff-Rantzau’s refusal to sign the Treaty of Versailles, Lenin’s offer to the People’s Deputies to support the resistance on the Rhine – these were the political realities behind it. The second National Bolshevist wave was the policy of fraternization pursued by the Hamburg ‘National-Communist circles’ under Wolffheim-Laufenberg (alongside and within the KAPD, after their expulsion from the KPD), with parts of General Lettow-Vorbeck’s Freikorps in Hamburg and other cities. Later there were the efforts in Munich to come to a policy of joint action between the communist Thomas, völkisch Police-President Poehner, and the fellows of the Freikorps Oberland, attempting such organising in Thuringia, in the East Prussian border-guard, and yes, among the Kapp soldiers.” - Karl Otto Paetel, The Years of National Bolshevism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

The national communist factions of Wolffheim-Laufenberg represent the clearest National Bolshevist inclination, yet frequently overlooked are the components of the Freikorps that diverged from the Kapp Putsch, along with the remnants of the Wilhelmine era. Further elaboration on this can be found in the footnotes.

“In the early morning hours of Tuesday, March 16th, a detachment of soldiers from the Ehrhardt-Brigade arrives at the Reich Chancellery seeking to be received by Kapp. When they are not admitted, they express their discontent in heated words: they have no more desire to continue their involvement in the swindle, since the seizure of the assets of profiteers has not occurred; they have not tagged along to set in place of Ebert a new Wilhelmine government; from Kapp they’ve had a gutful. When it becomes known among the troops that the detachment has not been admitted, they are seized with a tremendous uproar. The last troops which still hold loyal to Kapp erupt in white-hot mutiny. Immediately the shop-stewards of all contingents are mustered together. The assembly takes place towards midday in a hall of the Reich Chancellery, while in an opposite hall the helpless mummies of the old regime are pensively racking their empty brains. In the soldiers’ assembly, the indignation of the shop-stewards, who feel blatantly abused, is vented with unrestrained force. Added to that is the impression that they are situated in the midst of a mousetrap, from which the ring-leaders of the Putsch would certainly know of no way out. All who speak give speeches against the Wilhelmine officers and against the old regime. Under stormy applause, the Ehrhardt-people now call out to one of the national-socialist leaders in the hall: ‘We helped the Reaction get back on its feet again, we must make it clear to the workers that we are not against them, but want to fight with them.’ It is agreed to present their demands to General Lüttwitz. At this moment about 15 young officers rush into the hall, slung with hand-grenades from head to toe. One of them springs atop a table and calls out: ‘Comrades, who is in favour of the military taking charge? Who is in favour of fumigating the hall next door? Who is in favour of doing it the way we thought it was going to be done?’ And to all three questions there follows a unanimous, stormy applause. With rifles inversed, the formations that had just risen against the Kapp regime now move out of the city, where they come across armed workers in Friedenau to whom they shout: ‘We’ve broken with Kapp! We’re leaving!’ But already shots are being fired from the rows of armed workers. The soldiers also tear their guns around and return fire. The carnage begins.” - Karl Otto Paetel, Footnotes, The Years of National Bolshevism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

This account provides insight into a divergent faction within the Kapp Putsch, where Freikorps soldiers were dissatisfied with the objective of replacing Ebert with a Wilhelmine government and instead advocated for military rule. Regrettably, the envisioned collaboration between the workers and the Kapp mutineers never materialized. When the Kapp mutineers reached Friedenau, they encountered armed workers who opened fire, prompting the soldiers to retaliate. Karl Otto Paetel further elaborates on the unsuccessful efforts to foster unity between communists and nationalists in Germany during the early 1920s.

“After Schlageter’s execution in 1923, Karl Radek on the 20th of June delivered to the Central Committee of the KPD his famous speech titled “Schlageter, the Wanderer into the Void”, which called on the honest nationalists to integrate into the front of red revolution which alone would fight for national freedom, as the Ruhrkampf was being betrayed yet again by the bourgeoisie. The debate between the communists Radek & Fröhlich and the nationalists Reventlow & Moeller van den Bruck over “going a bit of the way together” was thereupon initiated in the ‘Roten Fahne’, the völkisch ‘Reichswart’ of Count Reventlow, and the ‘Ring’ of Baron von Gleichen; likewise that too eventually failed.” - Karl Otto Paetel, The Years of National Bolshevism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

National Bolshevism came into its own during the latter part of the 1920s, marked by the emergence of National Bolshevist publications like “The Socialist Nation.”

“In 1929 these concepts, which had in the meantime become worked out ever more clearly and concretely, were revived again by the other side – this time by the right.

First in the Jungen Volk, then in the Kommenden – two newspapers of the national revolutionary youth – were National Bolshevist demands discussed. In a special edition which committed itself to the class struggle, to the complete socialization of resources, and to a Greater German council-state, the National Bolsheviks for the first time presented themselves to the general public; Ascension Day 1930 thus saw the ‘Group of Social-Revolutionary Nationalists’ establish themselves around the National Bolshevist theses and the foundational work, “Social-Revolutionary Nationalism” [“Sozialrevolutionärer Nationalismus”].12 From here the other national revolutionary groups became more and more infected with this tendency. The Socialist Nation became the national-communist mouthpiece.

Such a ‘National Bolshevist’ position is today no longer so surprising as it was years ago. Ever more circles of people, especially of the younger generation, are today of anti-capitalist disposition, are through their mindset ‘National Bolsheviks’ even if they do not use the term. And where does one still find youth today who, turning their attentive eyes on their era, on the unemployment offices and working-districts, are still willing to justify and defend a social order that prevents 95% of the German people having any share at all in what they’re supposed to call their Fatherland?” - Karl Otto Paetel, The Years of National Bolshevism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

The evolution of National Bolshevism beyond the Wolffheim-Laufenberg initiative, which aimed to attract nationalists to leftist causes, occurred later in the 1920s. It stemmed from nationalists who inherently leaned towards socialism, developing a concept known as "social revolutionary nationalism." These individuals collaborated with, but operated independently from, the KPD, forming the Group of Social Revolutionary Nationalists. Their ideology blended fervent socialist and nationalist principles simultaneously.

Having explored the history of German national Bolshevism, the focus will now shift to the chapter "Young Nationalism," which delves into the youth nationalist movement in Germany. Karl Otto Paetel emerged from this cohort of revolutionary nationalist youth, hailing from a petite bourgeois background and pursuing studies in history and sociology. His involvement in anti-Versailles Treaty protests, attended by members of both the NSDAP and KPD, led to his expulsion from school. In this chapter, Paetel essentially reflects on his personal experiences and the milieu of the Group of Social Revolutionary Nationalists.

“The youth in Germany are today faced with a concrete decision: Either jeunesse dorée, to be the last contingent of yesterday’s age, in clear acknowledgement of the hopeless situation of the bourgeoisie who have failed politically in every circumstance (the shameless capitulation of the capitalists in the Ruhrkampf before General Dégoutte at the moment state subsidies were cut off is but one of many examples); or else, as socialists, to be the guardians of the original values of German history and even of bourgeois culture, standing in solidarity with the proletariat in their class-struggle without sentimental ‘Proletkult’. There is no compromise solution.

This decision does not cut off German youth from the history of their people. And the facts, around which every political decision must be oriented today, make the choice clear enough:

The lost war, doomed due to its entire structure justifying un-völkisch politics(three-class franchise*), due to the bourgeoisie’s corruption amidst the commercial tumult – this made us into the most profoundly anti-bourgeois.

The lost revolution, doomed due to the half-measures and lack of instinct on the part of its leaders, lost out of blindness towards the national task of radical upheaval – this made us all the more revolutionary.

The lost sovereignty of Germany, its doom guaranteed by the liberal-capitalist Weimar Republic and sustained through its subordination to Paris and Wall Street – this made us unequivocal nationalists.

The lie of the Volksgemeinschaft, a lie which defamed the process of renewing the body of the Volk [Volkskörper] and was embodied in the new state’s people-destroying [Volkszerstörend] striving for power – this made of us fighting-comrades in the class-struggle.

The hopeless fate of all post-war generations, the recognition that this fate is contingent on an anti-grass-roots, propertied-bourgeois, capitalist order – this made us into anti-capitalists, made us into socialists.” - Karl Otto Paetel, Young Nationalism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Here, Paetel articulates the notion that socialism will bring about a new socialist identity leading to a revolutionary consciousness, involving a transcendence of the past. In this process, the new socialist government becomes the caretaker of the nation's historical heritage and even upholds elements of high bourgeois values. This pattern has been observed in socialist revolutions worldwide, where the capitalist identity transitions into a socialist one, incorporating certain aspects of the old while discarding others. A prominent example is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, which integrates elements of Korean folk religion and the principles of self-reliance advocated by Korean anarchist Kim Chwa-Chin into its national proletarian consciousness, as evidenced by the presence of the Chondoist Chongu party and the ideology of Juche.

Following a series of political setbacks faced by the ruling German bourgeoisie in achieving sovereignty for Germany and the disappointing outcome of the National Assembly revolution hindered by social democratic compromises, young German nationalists found themselves gravitating towards a socialist revolutionary nationalist stance. For Paetel and the Group of Social Revolutionary Nationalists (GSRN), Germany was viewed as a mere colony of the Entente powers and their liberal bourgeois elite. This perception spurred a shift in the class struggle along national and social lines, leading to a convergence of nationalist aspirations to liberate Germany from the grip of the liberal-democratic bourgeoisie of the Entente and socialist ambitions to expropriate the comprador German bourgeoisie. This fusion culminated in a National Bolshevist stance advocating the rejection of the Versailles Treaty, the non-payment of war debts, the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, the implementation of a socialist economy, and an alliance with the USSR against the Entente.

Paetel also shares his perspectives on the Bundische groups, which were organizations of young men engaged in activities akin to the Boy Scouts. These groups each had their distinctive flags, rituals, beliefs, theories, and guiding principles.

“Unquestionably, the Bündische willingness – as demonstrated by the Jugendbünde, the Freikorps, and so on – to subordinate oneself and one’s own freedom to the ‘We’, to the self-selected ‘collective’, is not to be underestimated. It is pre-political rather than a fact of politics; ultimately it is a pedagogical category.

The Bündische ideal is not a political principle, it does not have to commit itself to a concrete manifestation in German politics. All the theories that the ‘Bündische Front’ can achieve state power tomorrow and will be able to transfer the laws of collective life from young people to the state order are indeed beautiful, but are regardless just romantic utopianism.

The true fronts work differently.

The Youth Movement has many accomplishments. Its educational aspects are undeniable today and can no longer be undone. Politically, however, it has failed all along the line.

In order to evaluate German politics correctly, the Youth Movement has to learn one thing: the significance of the Germany of big cities, the unemployment office, mass actions.

“The Youth Movement is dead! – Long live politics!”

This slogan, which years before closed out a leadership conference of one of the largest Bünde (although there were never any real consequences resulting from it), must be taken seriously at last by every single “Bündische” type.

Then, and only then, will power and success for the whole be pried from the substantial force which undoubtedly exists there.” - Karl Otto Paetel, Young Nationalism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Here, Paetel argues that while the Bundische ideal is beneficial for pedagogy in teaching and guiding the youth, it is not suitable for political purposes. He critiques the notion of integrating the laws of collective life of young bundists into the state as a form of romantic utopianism, acknowledging its appealing qualities. He suggests the need to transition from the fantasy world of outdoor activities and simulated collective living to the harsh reality of German politics, as reflected in the slogan "The Youth Movement is dead! – Long live politics!". A genuine political youth movement is distinct from a boys' scouts club, actively engaging in urban areas, unemployment offices, and mass mobilizations.

In the closing passage of Young Nationalism, Paetel emphasizes the importance of young nationalists aligning themselves with mass proletarian parties as part of their organizational task.  

“But there is a mission for young nationalism, particularly the post-War youth, which – after over ten years of the Front-generation’s struggling in vain – only they are able to resolve: to plant the flags of the nation in the camp of the class-struggle, to pass on by the word of mouth the watchword “Germany” in the Heerbann of the revolution, to form alongside the formations of the proletarian parties an order of nationalist, anti-bourgeois, and anti-capitalist revolutionaries.

To establish the focal point of immortal Germanness in the camp of today’s Fatherland-less, in readiness of the morrow’s duties: that is the task of

Young Revolutionary Nationalism.

Only there can the questions which face Germany’s youth today be answered.

We do not consider following Oswald Spengler’s counsel: “Endure the lost position of a sinking world, like that Roman soldier whose bones were found in front of a gate in Pompeii, who died at his post because, during the eruption of Vesuvius, they had forgotten to relieve him.”’ - Karl Otto Paetel, Young Nationalism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Paetel articulates that the objective of young nationalism is to unite with the class struggle and establish the nation's presence within it. The goal is to transform the class struggle into a national one, rather than blindly adhering to the outdated system of Germany, akin to the Roman soldier who remained steadfast during the eruption of Vesuvius without attempting to flee, unlike his masters who likely did.

Next, we will proceed to the chapter on War and Peace.

“War and peace can never in themselves be judged, per se. The denial or affirmation of their value and status is decided only in relation to the requirements of völkisch life [völkischen Lebens], the national will to self-determination, and those unique personal decisions that affect the national destiny which dominates the lives of individuals. Those unwilling to see and address every problem from the perspective of their individual experience will only be able to pass such a judgement when their relationship to this aspect is clear. War can only be approved of when it is definitively established that it is essential and unavoidable for the future, freedom, and viability of a Volk, only if its squandering of the Volk’s substance [Volkssubstanz] is justified by a greater and more secure future for the Volksgemeinschaft itself.

But a Volk that, as in Germany today, is merely an object of the politics of other states, can know only one alternative: first freedom, then peace.

 A war for the sake of freedom always receives – and the invention of gas weapons has changed nothing from the times in which death was brought by sword and spear – its inner sanctification. But never will nationalism itself be able to frame the struggle between peoples in such a fashion; it is earnest in attributing the supreme nation [Absolutum Nation] as the source of everything that it does. “War is the continuation of politics by other means” – this quote from Clausewitz demonstrates that the question of the affirmation or rejection of war cannot be posed abstractly, but must derive from the meaning, the legitimacy of politics – whose “continuation” it is. Only that communicates the essentials.” - Karl Otto Paetel, War and Peace, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

The assessment of war and peace cannot be made in isolation as abstract concepts. Instead, they should be evaluated based on the principles of volkischen Lebens, which emphasize the national will for self-determination. War should be considered a necessary course of action when it is vital for a people's future freedom and sustainability, justifying the temporary sacrifices made for the greater good and security of the Volksgemeinschaft. A nation that is subject to the political agendas of other states can only envision one alternative to imposed peace: seeking freedom first and then peace, even if it means engaging in warfare. While war for the cause of freedom is inherently justified, nationalism cannot view wars between nations in the same light, as all actions must be aligned with the supreme nation. Referring to Clausewitz's notion that war is a continuation of politics through different means, the legitimacy of politics and whose interests are being pursued must determine whether war is accepted or rejected. In the following passage, Paetel opposes Ernst Jünger's abstract glorification of war.

“Dr. Kurt Hiller*, for example, accuses me of letting the “frivolous” position of Ernst Jünger (of whom I quoted something without refuting it) not be given a sufficiently sharp differentiation.

Ernst Jünger is and will remain a beloved example of the daring ‘new nationalists’. He has given us, as the author of The Adventurous Heart, an eternal breviary of the nationalist faith. But his rationale for war in “fire and blood”, in which he expressly rejects sourcing the justification for war from anywhere (not even in the nation) but instead derives its raison d’être from the unique, great, intoxicating opportunities for adventure it provides in fulfilling the laws of the earth – we leave no doubt that this must be rejected. Just as little can we accept Jünger’s much too non-committal political demand for the state, which should be “social, defensive, and authoritarian”. The question of war and peace, of which the revolutionary pacifist senses “no hint of a distant sound” in our country, cannot be posed in absolute terms at all, and can only be answered in the context of “What for?”’ – Karl Otto Paetel, War and Peace, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Though Karl Otto Paetel holds a deep respect for Ernst Jünger, he firmly opposes the notion of a war fueled by a romanticized love for conflict and the excitement of adventure, devoid of any concrete justifications. In a National Communist Germany, foreign policy would be grounded in rationality, evaluating the necessity of war with the question "what for?" as the ultimate determining factor. This stance challenges both the radical warmonger and the radical pacifist. In addressing the criticism against revolutionary pacifism, Paetel elaborates in the footnotes:

“Only one response would be possible towards such ‘pacifists’ as F.W. Förster, who deigns to write: (12th Dec., 1930) “The Treaty of Versailles… not in the least an act of revenge… must not be undermined!” and (24th July, 1923) “ I wish someone had marched on Berlin… Oh, the French policy is but a half-measure… Someone must bring an end to this pig-sty!” To specify what that response might be would make one liable for the threat of murder.” ’ – Karl Otto Paetel, War and Peace, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

I believe this quote speaks for itself; it effectively conveys the message.

Moving on, let's proceed.

“As national-revolutionaries we stand for the nation as the “ultimate value”. Its existence and sovereignty is the political criterion. Only from this position can everything that happens be appraised, even the question of war and peace. Carl Schmitt has taught us one thing:

“For as long as a people exists in the political sphere, this people must, even if only in the most extreme case – and whether this point has been reached has to be decided by it – determine by itself the distinction of friend and enemy. Therein resides the essence of its political existence.”

Schmitt, the author of one of the best books on ‘political romanticism’, builds on Adam Müller’s† thesis: “Eternal peace cannot be the ideal of politics. Peace and war should complement each other like movement and repose. Mutual relations between states are the pre-requisites for growth and prosperity.” That means simply that the sovereignty of the socialist nation is the only benchmark according to which the actions of one revolutionary socialist state can be assessed against another. The Young Socialist Professor Heller‡ admits this, for example, when he avows the “national self-determination of the German people” to be the immutable goal of our “contemporary foreign policy decisions”.41 The implicit respect between socialist nations excludes neither the necessity nor the possibility of military confrontation. Choosing to position oneself to others as friend or foe connotes that, as Carl Schmitt correctly infers:

“War is only the most extreme consequence of enmity. It does not have to be common, normal, something ideal, or desirable. But it must nevertheless remain a real possibility for as long as the concept of the enemy has meaning.”

And thus this notion of the Enemy will not be able to vanish even in a socialist aggregation of free peoples, so long as state-sovereignty is demanded, so long as its safeguarding through living-space and its own laws of life [durch Lebensraum und eigene Lebensgesetze] must always be guaranteed anew.

Even among those of us outside this aggregation, no one sees in war simply an alarm clock, a means of awakening creative impulses. Not personal opportunities for adventure but the collectivity’s law of life determines the decision. Revolutionary nationalism thinks politically, not ideologically. Hence that is why it does not believe, so long as the concept of the political becomes a reality from the sovereignty of the state, that the decision by a people to be the friend – or enemy – of another can be done away with.” – Karl Otto Paetel, War and Peace, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

The core belief of the national revolutionary standpoint is that the nation holds the utmost importance, with its existence and sovereignty serving as the key political benchmarks. It is only from this perspective that one can accurately evaluate the concepts of war and peace. Carl Schmitt asserts that a people, existing within the realm of politics, must define its existence based on the distinction between friend and enemy. He goes on to elaborate that the mutual respect among socialist nations does not preclude the potential necessity or likelihood of military conflict. According to Schmitt, war does not have to be a regular occurrence or a desirable outcome to remain a real possibility, as long as the friend/enemy distinction and the essence of the political structure remain fundamental to the state's sovereignty, even within a socialist community of independent nations.

“That also means, ultimately, affirming the existence of war as ultima ratio: not as a ‘value in and of itself’, but as the last resort for the safeguarding of state sovereignty.

The acid test will be the – today outdated – question of space [Raumfrage]. The socialist state, which unlike in capitalism will not artificially restrict the biological power of a Volk (abortion), will some day find itself facing a surplus of humanity – ‘People Without Space’**. What then?

The Marxist answer that, as a consequence of amicable agreement, the population surplus could be settled in other, less populated parts of the Earth – perhaps Siberia – contradicts utterly the nationalist conception of the inseparability of the völkisch organism.

Here then will this ultima ratio be demonstrated: either the Volk freely receives its Lebensraum, or it takes it for itself.

Even a socialist nation will here make a decision: friend or foe.

Highest above all is the Volk’s right to exist.

Even in socialism.

For everything that is required of us happens for the sake of Germany’s eternal meaning, whose manifestations change, but whose core is immutable; the state of the Germans, as a generational succession of German people (one of Adam Müller’s true, basic principles), is a state of fate.” – Karl Otto Paetel, War and Peace, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

The idea of Lebensraum (living space) becomes a critical factor in the potential for military conflicts within a socialist society. In the absence of constraints on population growth, such as through practices like abortion, a socialist state could face challenges due to an overpopulation issue, necessitating the acquisition of additional land. This situation highlights the concept of ultima ratio as an inclination towards war, where the choice is stark: either the people are provided with living space, or they seize it for themselves.

Next, we will proceed to the chapter titled The Nation as the 'Highest Value'.

“In a passage from the previously-discussed article by Hiller (we remain with this topic because it is symptomatic of the dispute with the ‘Left’ in general), it is said of the national-revolutionaries that they “come over to us from nationalism as something that needs to be overcome”; elsewhere, approvingly, he says that: “they don’t relinquish one jot of the ‘golden core’ of their national sentiments (something alien to those with crippled souls).” These two quotes appear to be contradictory, but in reality they are quite related. Hiller, like Marx, respects the nation as existent today, and is even willing to concede to the continued existence of its ‘golden core’, i.e. its cultural aspects, language, customs, sense of homeland; however, exactly as Lenin so clearly said in his essays on the ‘National Question’, parallel to the withering away of the state there is to be an amalgamation of the nations into a higher unity.

There is also Jaurès’s view*, which does not exhaust the political meaning: “The nation is that treasury of human genius and progress, and it would be wicked for the proletariat to smash those precious vessels of human culture.”

The concept of sovereignty is alien to him, as it is alien to Lenin and Stalin, in an otherwise superb analysis of the nature of the nation.” – Karl Otto Paetel, The Nation as the ‘Highest Value’, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Paetel points out that although the Marxist analysis has an excellent understanding of the concept of the nation, it does not include the idea of sovereignty. In essence, a sovereign nation must possess control over its territories and governance; thus, to maintain sovereignty, a nation must have its own autonomous state.

“But we know that there is an innate meaning ingrained within folkdom; that here, as Ernst Jünger formulates it, is the ‘magical zero-point’ from which politics and economy, life and form derive their order. We know that ‘central value’ of the nation, as the fateful expression of this völkisch community, does indeed abide within all material forms of manifestation, that nation-building itself is also a very concrete affair. But we also know that this ‘ultimate value’ has an existence in itself which is not worth affirming today, but is reactionary and worth overcoming tomorrow.

It is beyond the determinations of space and time when exactly racial, geopolitical, economic, and other components of the Volk emerged, but at some point something ‘happened’ amongst a group of people and they became the historical phenomenon that is the German Volk (in Germany likely as a result of specific incidents between the six tribes: Franconian, Swabian, Bavarian, Thuringian, Saxon, Frisian).

Spengler has rightly determined that peoples [Völker] are born – i.e. they can appear and perish in historical terms, but never suffer an ‘evolution’ and suddenly become something else tomorrow, like a ‘human race’. Lagarde’s‡ expression: “Every Volk is a thought of God,” makes it clear that this faith in the fateful basis of völkisch existence [völkischen Dasein] is beyond discussion on a purely rational level.

It is therefore a misconception on the part of Marxists when they frequently deem our political ‘radicalization’ to be the sign of an evolution towards their position, that one day we shall also overcome our today somewhat troublesome metaphysical childishness and thus our ‘idolatry’ of the nation.

That belief is the very basis of our being. End of discussion.” – Karl Otto Paetel, The Nation as the ‘Highest Value’, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Here, Paetel discusses the significant zero-point where politics, the economy, life, and form find their organization. Within the German context, a transformation occurred among the six tribes, leading to the emergence of racial, geopolitical, economic, and other aspects of the Volk. The core value of the nation resides in all tangible forms of expression, and the process of nation-building is a tangible endeavor. Nonetheless, the ultimate value encompasses elements that are currently regressive and should be surpassed in the future. Paetel aligns with Oswald Spengler in asserting that peoples are born, appear, and may disappear in historical terms but do not undergo evolution to become something different in the future, like a "human race." The belief that each Volk is essentially a divine idea, emerging from historical circumstances and subject to historical laws, constitutes the essence of Volkish Dasein and transcends rational debate. Hence, the National Bolsheviks are not evolving towards the Marxist stance; the commitment to the nation underpins their entire existence.

Next, we will delve into the chapter on Marxism and the National Question.

“That Lenin in any event saw this as a future goal is inarguable. He expressed it clearly and unambiguously: “It is with pride that we can say: at the First Congress we were in fact merely propagandists; we were only proclaiming our fundamental ideas among the world’s proletariat; we only issued the call to fight; we were merely asking where the people were who were capable of taking this path. Now the advanced proletariat is everywhere. Everywhere there is, albeit often poorly organized, a proletarian army, and if our international comrades will now help us to organize a united army, then nothing will prevent us from accomplishing our task. That task is the world proletarian revolution, the creation of a world Soviet republic.”

Trotsky, too, in his pamphlet “Against National Communism” clearly puts forward the slogan of the “United Soviet States of Europe”.

Or, as Lenin puts it: “The socialist movement cannot triumph within the old, national framework. It creates new, higher forms of human coexistence, in which the legitimate needs and progressive aspirations of the working masses of each nationality will, for the first time, be satisfied through international unity, provided existing national partitions are eliminated.”

Lenin further says: “In the era of imperialism, there can be no other salvation for the majority of the world’s nations than through revolutionary actions undertaken by the proletariat of the Great Powers, spreading beyond the bounds of nationality, smashing those boundaries, and overthrowing the international bourgeoisie. If this overthrow does not occur, the Great Powers will continue to exist, i.e. the oppression of nine-tenths of all nations in the world will remain. But if the bourgeoisie’s fall does occur, it will enormously accelerate the downfall of each and every national partition…”

In the Sessions of the 16th Congress (1930, June/July), Stalin expressed himself unequivocally on the issue of the future of national languages:

“But as far as the future prospects of national cultures and national languages are concerned, I have always been and will always remain of Leninist opinion that, at the time of socialism’s victory on a world scale where socialism will infuse and strengthen the way of life, national languages must merge into one common tongue; although this tongue will neither be Great-Russian nor German, but something new.”’ – Karl Otto Paetel, Marxism and the National Question, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this context, Paetel highlights the shared belief among Lenin, Stalin, and Trotsky that the ultimate aim is a global communist society without borders. However, as previously noted, this vision is deemed unattainable due to the significance of sovereignty in defining nations. Even the concept of socialism in one country is seen merely as a transitional phase towards the ideal of a borderless world communism. While the dialectical materialist perspective suggests that national divisions in the world economy will gradually erode, Paetel contrasts this with a dialectical idealist viewpoint inspired by the ideas of Fichte to von Ranke.

“In contrast, a line of dialectical idealism can be drawn from Fichte through Hegel to von Ranke:

“The relationship of the individual to the Spirit of the people [Volksgeist] is that he appropriates this substantial existence, that this becomes his character and ability, that he may be something. For he finds the being of his own Volk as a wide, established, firm world before him, with which he has to incorporate himself.” (from Hegel’s Lectures). Or as Hegel formulated in his Foundations of the Philosophy of Right:

“The march of God in the world, that is what the state is; its reason is power, actualized as will. In considering the Idea of the state we must not have our eyes on particular states, nor particular institutions; instead one must consider the Idea, this actual God, by itself.”

 And Leopold von Ranke (Political Dialogues) states that:

“All the states in the world that count for something are suffused with their own special tendencies. It would be ridiculous to interpret them as little more than protection agencies for individuals who’ve banded together to protect their private property, for example. On the contrary, those tendencies are of a spiritual nature, and the character of all their fellow-citizens is thereby determined, indelibly imprinted upon them.”

Moeller van den Bruck refers to this avowal in his The Eternal Reich [“Das ewige Reich”]: “Every Volk embodies a special thought that belongs to it, just as it itself is an indivisible whole belonging to itself. It is born with this thought. With this thought it breaks away from the bosom of race and earth and hurls itself into historical space.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Marxism and the National Question, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In the first passage by Hegel, it is explained that individuals evolve from being abstract to concrete through the influence of the spirit of the people, known as Volksgeist. The state is viewed as a manifestation of reason and power, representing the "march of God in the world." It emphasizes focusing on the abstract spirit of the state rather than specific aspects. Ranke highlights that states have unique characteristics derived from their people, going beyond mere protection of property to possess spiritual and educational qualities. Van den Bruck introduces the concept of ethnos, suggesting that each people embodies distinct ideas guiding their historical development.

Paetel suggests that the state is more than a protector of property rights, embodying spiritual elements rooted in the ideas of its people. The Marxist-Leninist perspective on nations and states appears contradictory, advocating for the dissolution of state structures while supporting national self-determination within a federal system. Despite the eventual fading of state influence in a socialist society, the importance of maintaining cultural identities is stressed to prevent homogenization. This cultural preservation is seen as essential in evolving ethnic identities towards socialist consciousness, forming a collective "people's logos."

“But Lenin quite clearly says the opposite in his articles on “The National Question”:

“Marxism is irreconcilable with nationalism, be it even the fairest, purest, most civilized brand of nationalism. Marxism substitutes internationalism in place of all forms of nationalism, the amalgamation of nations into a higher unity, a unity that is growing before our eyes with every mile of railway line built, with every international trust, and with every workers’ association formed (an association that is international in its economic activities as well as in its ideas and aspirations).”

“The proletariat cannot support any consolidation of nationalism; on the contrary, it supports everything that hastens the abolition of national differences and the removal of national barriers, everything that makes the ties between nationalities closer and closer, everything that leads to the merging of nations.”

Against these hypotheses, which as predictions are, of course, based on faith rather than knowledge, we position another:

Assuming the Marxist thesis to be correct that being determines consciousness (more likely, there may be interplay between the two), we are of the belief that a new socialist being will also shape a new consciousness, insofar as that sense of attachment to the values of homeland, soil, and Volk (absent from the capitalist being) will restore itself, and of itself restore a strengthening of the national character – but the drive towards assimilation, towards a withering away, will never arise. On the contrary, the outcome instead will be an ever-growing awareness of national distinctiveness, an ever-growing involvement in the German historical tradition, an ever-growing consciousness of one’s own formative principles, i.e. the will to live as a sovereign, socialist nation.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Marxism and the National Question, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Lenin argues that the centralization of production forces requires corresponding forms of production development on a global scale, making nationalism regressive. While institutions like the UN, IMF, and World Bank, along with the US dollar's dominance in the banking system, reflect this to some extent, there are other factors at play. Technological advancements, such as production lines, small motors, computing technologies, blockchain, AI, and solar panels, are driving a trend towards decentralized production forces. This decentralization aligns with Sorel's vision of highly productive small workshops and is evident in the shift towards a multipolar world order.

Lenin's internationalist ideals were based on optimistic predictions about future production forms, which history has proven to be inaccurate. Paetel's belief in a socialist consciousness strengthening national identity has been validated by socialist nations pursuing independent production models and asserting their sovereignty. While state-owned production eliminated economic subjugation and upheld socialist principles, it led to a resurgence of national and proletarian consciousness. This nationalistic approach to production under socialism confirms Paetel's perspective on the importance of cultural and national identity in shaping economic systems.

“It is however but a simple dilettantism of Otto Strasser’s, not much improved by its backwards-looking pathos, when he always reduces the debate with Marxism in his excitable ‘disputations’ down to the set formula:

“We and you want socialism! But the path is different. You want it on an international basis, we on a national one! The first is impossible because of every country’s different economic maturity, and because experience shows that the Comintern has achieved nothing.”

Strasser, if he were to read Marxist writings, would find that sentiment far better expressed in them, such as in the “Programme of the 6th World Congress of the Communist International”

(46th Session, from 1st September 1928): “Unequal economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. It is exacerbated even more acutely in the epoch of imperialism, hence it follows that the international proletarian revolution cannot be conceived as a single event occurring simultaneously world-wide. At first socialism may be victorious in a few, or even in a single country alone. But every such proletarian victory broadens the basis of the world revolution and consequently further intensifies the general crisis of capitalism. The capitalist system in this way approaches its final collapse. The dictatorship of finance capital breaks apart.”

The second of Strasser’s claims is not proven in all instances, the Russian Revolution being based for example on the here-denied ‘international’ way. So there is no split between the fronts at all: There is nothing contradictory in the way nationalist socialism can be quite international, working together with all those other forces seeking to take down the same adversary.

The final goal, however, is achieved by separation.

That Marxism rejects the socialist nation is proclaimed by Lenin: “The idea of the juridical separation of nations from one another (the so-called ‘national-cultural autonomy’ of Bauer and Renner§) is a reactionary idea.”

This is the same goal – whereby the different nature of the current practise of Russia’s nationality-policy is by no means misunderstood – as Trotsky describes:

“Marxism takes its point of departure from the world economy, not as a sum of national parts but as a mighty and independent reality created by the international division of labor and the world market, and which in the present epoch holds sway over the national markets.

“The productive forces of capitalist society have long outgrown the national powers. The imperialist war was an expression of this fact. Compared to capitalist society, socialist society must represent a higher stage in respect to technique of production. To aim at building a nationally isolated socialist society means, in spite of all passing successes, to pull back the forces of production even as compared with capitalism.”

“Attempting to realize – independent of the geographical, cultural, and historical conditions of the country’s development, which constitutes a part of the world unity – a self-contained proportionality of all branches of the economy within a national framework means pursuing a reactionary utopia.”

But Nationalist Communism (before Marx, incidentally, a man in the French Revolution had already put forward entirely communist demands for the sake of the nation: Fouché in the Lyons “Instructions”) ** knows that with this goal a Fata Morgana is placed before the German people, knows that it can only mean: Communism? – Yes! – But as a German duty of order, within the boundaries of the nation. That is what calls us, not the world economy.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Marxism and the National Question, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this context, Paetel critiques Strasser for lacking a thorough understanding of Marxist principles. He argues that socialism must initially take root on a national level and may not simultaneously manifest in all countries, contrary to the Comintern's stance. Paetel suggests that nationalist socialism can still have international implications by supporting revolutions in other nations and engaging in trade post-revolution, leading to the inevitability of an international community. However, he asserts that this does not necessarily entail the dissolution of nations and their economic divisions, emphasizing the importance of maintaining national identities within a communist framework.

Transitioning to the discussion on Prussia as a guiding principle...

“There is one thing socialism cannot ignore: the reality of Prussia.

There indeed, as both Oswald Spengler and Moeller van den Bruck identified within the ‘Prussian style’, is the type of state socialism which we have demanded arise within the German territories; it already exists in them in embryonic form. There has that choice for ‘We’ over ‘I’, for unity in polarity, already manifested itself (in contrast to the Marxist conception of society) a creative self-existence, grounded in blood and steel – and experienced as a demand, not as some special opportunity.

Of course, one must keep in mind that there is another side to these things: it is no coincidence that the synthesis became ‘Prussianism and Socialism’*, e.g. Spengler’s glorification of the ‘human carnivore’. Even the Prussian principle is today in danger of being misused.

Only Prussia is historically capable, seeing itself always as the correlate of the Eternal German; only Prussia, which incorporates the old Junker tradition, meets the demands of Baron von Stein to involve the Volk in the responsibility of the state.

Never, however, should the veneration of that Old Prussianism which is popular in some circles – such as we see reflected in the writings of A. Ludwig von der Marwitz, with their unbelievable invective towards the ‘youth leagues’, their contempt for the liberation of the peasants, for self-government reforms, and even for the ‘Jacobins’ of 1813 – be answered with anything other than a declaration of war. Not such transitory forms of Prussian statehood, unconditional antagonisms from a period of upheaval, but instead the plea to be a ‘servant of the state’, as lived and embodied by Frederick II – that is the formative power that cannot be renounced and which instead forms the basis of state power, as indeed Russia has well taken note of. That Prussia of which the knightly orders dreamed when they erected the massive battlements of Marienburg‡ – and one must be clear about this, too – is another source of will, and one that is unacceptable if one is not ready to accept the foundation of faith behind the vows which shaped the people, nature, and histories of the Teutonic Knights and determined the direction of their will: Christianity.

The unifying rationale for today’s ‘heathen’ idea of the state is not to be drawn from Hermann von Salza, nor from Ludwig von der Marwitz; only from the Potsdam of Frederick the Great can one make the leap over the philosophers of Hegel’s total state and his Marxist inversion to reach the socialist statehood of tomorrow.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Prussia as a Principle, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this context, the concept of Prussia serves as the foundation for the future socialist state of Germany. The essence of Prussia, where the individual is viewed as a servant of the state, is deemed essential for ensuring the involvement of the people in the state affairs of Germany. It is important to understand that embracing the Prussian principle does not imply a rejection of progressive ideas such as youth empowerment, peasant liberation, and self-governance reforms. Instead, it is about embodying these ideals within the framework of the Prussian principle. This approach is distinct from traditional Christian Prussianism, as it looks beyond Hegel's concept of the all-encompassing state and Marx's revolutionary paradigm, towards a socialist state that envisions the future.

“For this nationalism is unchristian [unchristliche], then and now. The personal fate of the Prussian officer Trenck shows what it’s all about: Personally plunged by the King into the most painful depths, this former favorite of the King and beloved of the King’s sister, after nine years of inhuman suffering in the casemates of Magdeburg, dedicated at the end of a ruined existence his life’s confession to “the spirit of Frederick the Unique.”

This clearly illustrates that in Prussia no oath is subject to recall. Only through this ethos, which uniquely and irrevocably is able to bind the Germans of tomorrow to the socialist nation, will Germany live. And therefore:

Prussia must be.

Prussia as an attitude.

Prussia as a principle.

Prussia as a spiritual reality.

As Moeller van den Bruck put it:

“Germany cannot do without Prussia, because it cannot do without Prussianism.”

“Prussianism, that is the will to the state and the recognition that historical life is a political life in which we must act as a political people.”

It goes without saying, of course, that this is not about the country of Prussia – which will have to be subordinated to the organic, decentralized unity-concept through the council-structure of the tribal regions (the ancestral heartland of Prussia indeed did not establish a biologically distinct but historically existent ‘new tribal concept’) – but Prussia’s impulse of will. One could also say that it is about Germany’s ‘Prussianization’.

Socialism will transform German ‘citizens’ into appendages of the German state; the contradictions between Nation, Volk, and State will be abolished by it and refashioned into a new synthesis.

It is obvious that the old medieval ‘imperial idea’ [Reichsidee] of the supranational Christian ruler, which the German emperor still embodies à la Dante, has nothing to do with this. Its end-goal, too, the “pacification of the world by the sceptre-bearer of the Imperium”, has faded away into irrelevance. Socialist Germany is of a different essence entirely.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Prussia as a Principle, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this context, the pagan notion of governance is considered, where Prussia will transition from a nation to a decentralized unity model through tribal regional councils. However, the essence of Prussia will be ingrained in the spiritual essence of the emerging German statehood. The German populace will be integrated into the state apparatus, aiming to eliminate conflicts between nation, people, and state.

Next, we will delve into the next section….

“The class struggle is not an invention of the ‘Jew Marx.’

It is a fact of daily life, reflecting the labor contract between employer and employee, as well as the functions of press, state, and cultural life.

It is a battle line established by those who are in possession of the economic means of power, imposed on those ‘below’, who respond with fury. It does not require a moral judgement but instead a stated decision on which side we want to fight.

The class struggle is not some artificial construct. As everywhere in the life of cells, new, young life replaces the old and feeble; so too in the body of the Volk [Volkskörper] is the old leadership class, after fulfilling its function for the community over a certain period, replaced by new forces – usually with violence.

Thus is the class struggle, irrespective of the fact that this process is playing itself out amongst all peoples, a course of events in the life of the Volk [Volkslebens], a process of reversal against the leadership forces within a folk-organism. [Volksorganismus].

Just as every previous revolution had its sociological bearer – the clearest example being the ‘bourgeois’ French Revolution – so too does the revolution in which we are situated. The working class, which is today pounding at the gates of German history, will have to battle out the class struggle with the current holders of the economic resources and instruments of power so that it can have both transferred into the workers’ hands at the moment of revolution, thus being ready to declare itself a nation and to replace the old leadership.” – Karl Otto Paetel, The Class Struggle as a Nationalist Demand, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this context, the class conflict is perceived as an inherent process within each societal structure, manifesting as a tangible reality in every community where new leadership must supersede the old. Throughout history, revolutions have been driven by specific social groups in accordance with the material laws that govern societal progress. Those seeking entry into the annals of German history are bound by these laws to emerge victorious in the struggle for class dominance, leading to the redistribution of economic resources and power to the working class. The aspiration for national identity and the class conflict are intertwined, and it is through the proletarian revolution that Germany can re-establish its national identity in the face of the prevailing international bourgeoisie.

As for the discussion on the Jewish Question by Paetel:

“Incidentally: The Jewish question cannot be resolved at all without being incorporated into the overall racial question – and not at all in a purely negative fashion. Marx’s analysis (“On The Jewish Question”) that the entrepreneurial, usurious, exploitative ‘Jewish spirit’ can be liquidated only at the moment when it is deprived of the basis of the capitalist order is correct. In socialist Germany the Jews will face the decision to emigrate or to productively integrate themselves as a ‘national minority’ into the process of national construction (settlers, artisans). In völkisch-cultural life, like all minorities, their influence will be weak, represented only be a few men who have demonstrated their pre-eminence; for example, Friedrich Gundolf’s work on Goethe, Gustav Landauer’s writing on Hölderlin, or Maximilian Harden’s Heads [“Köpfe”] have proven their authors possible exceptions. In the political arena, like all minorities, they will have the right to vote in and stand for elections to the legislative organs, but not the right to stand for the executive. Rather, they will only be delegable to council meetings in their own cultural representative bodies.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Footnotes, The Class Struggle as a Nationalist Demand, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Unlike the Hitlerite perspective that solely demonizes the Jewish population, Paetel holds a contrasting viewpoint. Recognizing them as a national minority, he acknowledges their capability and historical contributions to the nation. Paetel argues that it is reasonable for Jews to have voting rights and the opportunity to run for office, with the caveat that they should be excluded from executive positions. Instead, he suggests the establishment of cultural representative institutions for the Jewish community.

Next, we will proceed to the chapter on “Versailles!”

“The enemy of revolutionary nationalism remains:

Versailles!

There is little we have to say thereof, but always remember: that is the boulder that weighs down upon Germany’s freedom.

The path to nationhood,

The path to socialism,

The path to revolution,

leads only through the tearing-up of all treaties and pacts

from Versailles to Young!

Anyone who betrays this realization by snivelling for revision betrays the German future, betrays the socialist nation of tomorrow.

The path to the sovereign German nation leads only through the restoration of Greater Germany, i.e. solely and exclusively through the ruins of the system of Versailles!

 Frenchman Jaurès shows us the  right response:

“The fatherland is not an idea that has outlived its usefulness; the concept of the fatherland evolves and deepens itself. I have always been convinced that the proletariat in its innermost being cannot accept any doctrine of national renunciation, of national servitude. To revolt against the despotism of kings, against the tyranny of the ruling class, yet let the yoke of conquest and the rule of a foreign militarism be imposed without any resistance, is such a childishly pathetic contradiction that at the first alarm of invasion all forces of instinct and reason would have to be swept away for it to make sense. That the proletarians, who are not liberated from capital by the conqueror, should consent furthermore to be a tributary, is a monstrosity… The reality, however, is this: wherever there is a fatherland, that is, a historical group that is conscious of its unity and continuity, then any attack on the freedom and independence of this fatherland is an assassination attempt against civilization, a relapse into barbarism.”’ – Karl Otto Paetel, Versailles, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this passage, Karl Otto Paetel emphasizes the necessity of abolishing the Versailles and Young treaties. He asserts that dismantling these agreements is crucial for the progression towards a stronger German socialist state, as the Versailles system was imposed on Germany by foreign powers following an imperialist war for which Germans were not accountable.

Next, we will proceed to the section titled "Revolutionary Foreign Policy."

“The revolutionary-nationalist conception of foreign-policy is therefore clear:

A front against Versailles, which means a front against the West and its eastern and southeastern satellites. Which involves taking up the old slogan of Brockdorff-Rantzau: “Against capitalism and imperialism.” A slogan for which the words of Moltke cannot hold true: “It is a hard lot to be a patriot in Germany, for one is… forgotten.” – Yet he is, nonetheless, the wayfarer of our insurrectionary will.

It means forming a fighting-community with the adversary of the Versailles world: Russia. Only in league with Russia, which as the first socialist world-power will be a natural ally for a socialist Germany, can the German Eastern Question be resolved – which at the same time will determine the existence of Poland.

The same front includes all the oppressed peoples of the Earth [alle unterdrückten Völker der Erde]. In place of a colonial policy, the ‘League of Oppressed Nations’ will be brought under German leadership.

These are the political frontlines – all while the NSDAP is in racial sympathy with England, full of resentment and romanticism, its anti-Russia policy a capitalistic mercenary attitude, its exclusive Italian agenda suggestive of dogmatic obsession.

So exist the fronts in the world today, created by the class-struggle of nations. The foreign-policy of a Volk is invariably conditioned in part through that struggle; what the others do or not do is never doctrine – but instead always a question of expediency. Therefore this policy cannot be made by a Germany of Hindenburg or Hitler, but can only arise from a Revolutionary Germany.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Revolutionary Foreign Policy, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this passage, Karl Otto Paetel advocates for the foreign policy of a Socialist Greater Germany to form an anti-Versailles coalition with the Soviet Union. Such an alliance with Russia would influence the resolution of the German Eastern Question and the status of Poland. This proposed coalition against the Versailles system would not only involve Germany and the USSR but also unite all oppressed nations worldwide under German leadership. Paetel contrasts this approach with that of the NSDAP, which, in racial alignment with England, follows a profit-driven capitalist policy against Russia.

Next, we will proceed to the chapter titled "The New Faith."

 ”Brüning, rightly described as the greatest German Chancellor since Bismarck, governed not only by virtue of the bureaucratic and organizational leverage of the state he represented, not only because finance capital bestowed all its support upon him as a solid advocate against social revolution. This Roman Chancellor of the German nation was the master of Germany because he is one of the few men of our day who lives from faith, who acts from faith, who is supported by a spiritual reality: faith in Eternal Rome. And faith can always and can only be overcome by a new faith, never through negation, never through scepticism. Eternal Rome will only disappear from the German regions when faith in Eternal Germany replaces it.

Rome, and with it all of Western Christianity, can with utmost tranquillity face the trite pseudo-enlightenment of the free-thinking circles, the tasteless invective directed against the priesthood. By virtue of its faith it will be able to master such mere ‘anti’ tendencies.

Yet with all the disquiet and unrest today, Rome is already confronted with the beginnings of a new faith, the approach of a German renaissance. And from here it is understandable if, for example, the work of Rudolf Pannwitz or Stefan George is branded dangerous by the Christian intellectual circles which Ludwig Klages bitterly fought against; if, on the edges of today’s politics, the still unfinished attempts of the circles around Ludendorff to work on a new German faith are answered with hate and scornful vilification.

Here, where the outline of a new paganism shines forth, a new cosmic religiosity centered in blood, soil, and race, rooted in the divine breath of worldly life – here do the first axe blows fall upon the edifice of the Oriental faith which overshadows the people.

And if German nationalism has a deep spiritual and religious sense, then it is that (as Rosenberg recognized, but then recanted under the pressure of his Catholic master) of an insurrection of the Germanic way of life, poisoned and suppressed since the days of Charlemagne the Saxon-slayer, against the foreign infiltration of Christianity.

The new paganism, the renaissance of a German faith, will be the living justification and the power source of the German revolution.” – Karl Otto Paetel, The New Faith, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Here, Karl Otto Paetel proposes that the only way to eliminate faith is by replacing it with a new faith. In this case, he suggests replacing the faith in eternal Rome with a belief in eternal Germany. Paetel argues that Christianity has historically been viewed as a foreign intruder and an Eastern religion in Europe. Instead, he highlights a growing Germanic faith among intellectual circles as the new guiding ideology for the revolution. This new faith would revolve around a cosmic spirituality focused on blood, land, and race. Paetel sees this revival of a German faith as the legitimate justification and driving force behind the German revolution.

Next, we will delve into the section discussing opposition to Fascism.  

Opposition to Fascism

Let's begin with Paetel's critique of the Strasserists, also known as the "reformed national socialism." The reformed national socialism aimed to establish a "German Socialist party" by uniting the Strasserist Fighting Community of Revolutionary National Socialists and Captain Stennes' Independent National Socialist Combat Movement of Germany, both of which had broken away from Hitler's party. Paetel sought to persuade these splinter groups of the NSDAP to join the GSRN in their collaboration with the KPD to resist the NSDAP, which Paetel believed had compromised its principles.

“The main reason why every attempt at reform (an approach which puts their mission in the wrong from the very beginning) involves turning against the NSDAP is due to the accusation of personal inadequacy against the old Party leaders, of the leaders’ deviation from the old (and in principle correct) 25-point line, as well as their pursuit of the wrong tactical measures.

They all want to be National Socialists, those who turn against the unsatisfactory Hitler, against the influence of the big shots [Bonzokratie], against the creeping bourgeois mentality, against the Brown House, against the incorrect ‘legal’ measures of the Party leadership, each believing themselves to be the one in possession of the true ring. Otto Strasser has to that end provided the framework of a ‘Worldview of the 20th Century’; Captain Stennes appeals to the revolutionary sentiment and yearning of the SA-members; the German-Socialist Party is turning away from the incorrect measures of the last quarter.

And here is the breaking-point of all these attempts. Being an opposition group can be valuable. The fate of the various oppositions within the Marxist camp, however, shows clearly enough that the most auspicious fate awaiting an opposition is that its arguments (three quarters of which are only ever in respect to tactical differences) will one day be silently accepted, with the ‘conscience of the party’ thereupon, without any further ado, shedding its entire reason for existence.

If, however, the real failure of the Hitler-party is not due to the inadequacy of its leading personalities, but is based instead in the party’s fundamentally poor decisions, then any such reformer misses the core issue and becomes a miniature copy of the bigger brother, never the bearer of historical laws.” - Karl Otto Paetel, Reformed National Socialism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Here, he contends that an opposition group can be beneficial as its arguments are often quietly acknowledged and then assimilated into the original party, which Paetel sought to do with the KPD and, to some extent, achieved success when Thalmann made nationalist statements. However, the National Socialist reformers fail to recognize that the downfall of the Hitler party was not due to the shortcomings of its leaders but rather stemmed from the party's poor decisions. They are destined to become a mere replica of the larger party as they do not disavow the NSDAP's mistake of not aligning with the communist revolution, thus failing to embody historical lessons.

Next, we will discuss the chapter "The Fascist Mistake," in which he critiques the fascist stance of the NSDAP and its splinter factions. Bb

“The disastrously misjudged historical mission of that which quite justifiably might have been called ‘national-socialism’* can already be seen in the Hitler-party’s first months of work in 1919, in which the anti-statist resentments against Berlin (which are practically a philosophy of life on the other side of the ‘Main line’, where it is preferred to look to Rome rather than to the land of the ‘Prussian Gau’) were underlined by a pronounced historical mistake, a mistake which definitively rejected the character of the ‘Germanic uprising’ against Paris.

At the moment when those under Versailles alone were capable of making history, the slogan of rebellion against Versailles was supplemented by the domestic-political slogan “Against Marxism”, turning on its head the willingness to, in the Party’s name, take the side of the destitute or homeless, the Fatherland-less, in order to create for them a homeland via radical change to societal and economic life. Upon realizing that the demand of the hour was “Through Socialism to the Nation”, the calculation of the fascist propertied-bourgeoisie became: “Beat Marxism – and you eliminate Volk-destructive class-stratification!’

Thus the principle that the NSDAP committed itself to was false from the start, which therefore dooms to failure every attempted renaissance of its spirit which reaffirms that same principle.” - Karl Otto Paetel, The Fascist Mistake, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

According to Paetel, the initial mistake of the NSDAP was turning away from Berlin and its Marxist foundation, opting instead to align with Rome and embrace the concept of a fascist corporate state—a utopian socialist endeavor—rather than staying true to the principles of scientific socialism rooted in Marxism. When the public clamored for “Through Socialism to the Nation,” the wealthy bourgeois elite, fearing for their private capital, countered with the slogan “Against Marxism.” They found comfort in the idea of bourgeois socialism in fascist Italy, which posed less of a threat to their interests and allowed them to maintain their private capital. This misstep lies at the core of the NSDAP, built on a flawed bourgeois ideology.

“A look at the development of Italian fascism demonstrates the inevitable, obligatory lawfulness of such a fighting position. In recent months Dr. K.A. Wittfogel was unequivocally able to prove, on the basis of old ideological texts18, that the first fascist programmes bore a thoroughly revolutionary socialist character, roughly equivalent to the German USPD. So long as the Fascios stood by these demands, they simply remained one among many troublemaking frontline fighters’ associations. At the moment, however – just as occurred in Germany in 1919 – in which the bourgeoisie, menaced by the “Bolshevik wave”, recognized the chance to deploy these militant forces for its own security, then fascism emerged theoretically and practically as an anti-Marxist force and unambiguously assumed a societal function as a security organization for the establishment.

When on the first of May the cells of fascist railwaymen made it impossible to carry out a general strike for the first time in Italy; when the fascist fighting-leagues, with clandestine support from the government, liquidated the syndicalist occupation of the factories; then had Mussolini, completely ignoring the old radical points of his programme, created the psychological conditions for the anti-Bolshevik forces to more or less gladly clear the way for the establishment of ‘Peace and Order’.” - Karl Otto Paetel, The Fascist Mistake, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this account, Paetel explains that the early fascist agenda was deeply rooted in socialism and revolution, positioning them as one of many disruptive groups on the frontlines. However, the bourgeois class, feeling threatened by the social upheaval of the Biennio Rosso, strategically utilized the Fascios to counter the Bolsheviks as a form of security force. Desperate for financial support, the fascists were willing to engage in violent conflicts and side with the bourgeoisie against their Bolshevik rivals in exchange for funding. Paetel also highlights how the fascist paramilitary groups, with covert backing from the government, effectively dismantled the syndicalist occupation of factories, essentially operating as a security force for the bourgeois class and straying from their original revolutionary socialist and national syndicalist ideals.

Next, we will delve into the chapter titled "The Historical Error of the NSDAP," which examines the party's significant historical misstep.

“The parallel is obvious. The seven-man-council in Munich, as an anti-Versailles force and likewise through its ‘alignment’ (the emotional anticapitalism of “breaking the bondage of interest”, only attractive to the uprooted, revolutionary layers of radicalized front-soldiers, students, etc.), became a piece on the chessboard of sluggishly reviving bourgeois politics at the moment it became clear that from them (with the bourgeoisie’s gracious toleration of their youthful exuberance in expressing radical feelings) the forces could be formed that would be able to push back against the advancing Marxist working-class and, possibly, be in the position to eliminate them.

In a situation where the urgent decision to be made on the class forces was increasingly clear-cut, whoever took up the slogan “Against Marxism” in the battle between Capital and Labor had to remain willingly or unwillingly indifferent out of necessity, in order to be able to side with those who had every interest in repudiating Marxism’s political and economic claims to power. Finance-capital and large landowners, jobless officers and restoration-obsessed feudal lords, all could at that moment overlook a few programmatic blemishes, since they still demonstrated the NSDAP’s possibilities for returning the distribution of power in German politics back to its old state.

The blame for this development does not lie with the incapable Osaf Herr Stennes, Herr Strasser, or even with Herr Schulze*, who were likewise powerless to escape from the internal dynamic.

One may reject certain points of the Marxist program, one may maintain that its worldview is deficient and out-of-date, but one will refute it neither by coaxing nor with Stormtroopers. It can only be overcome from within itself. Russia shows that. As a nationalist, one’s thinking on German politics today must be in terms of forces, not ideologies.” – Karl Otto Paetel, The Historical Error of the NSDAP, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Paetel highlights the sentiment of anti-capitalism rooted in the idea of "breaking free from financial servitude," which, while a significant socialist aspiration, aligns more closely with Proudhonian mutualist petty bourgeois socialism. This ideology appealed predominantly to the displaced petite bourgeoisie rather than to the working class. He observes that a faction of young radical bourgeoisie, adhering to a blend of nationalism and a softer form of socialism like nationalized mutualism, could be mobilized against the Marxist proletariat, marking a critical historical misstep of the nationalist petite bourgeoisie. Due to the NSDAP's anti-Marxist stance, they have become indifferent to the class struggle, drawing support from elements of finance capital, feudal landlords, and petite bourgeois groups willing to overlook the NSDAP's flaws in exchange for the promise of restoring Germany to its former glory. Paetel argues that while one may critique certain aspects of Marxism and view its ideology as outdated, these critiques should be addressed within the Marxist framework rather than resorting to violent measures against the Marxist working class. He concludes by emphasizing the importance of considering political dynamics in terms of forces rather than ideologies.

Concluding the anti-fascist discussion, Paetel's chapter "Council State or Corporate State?" presents his vision for a council republic while contrasting and critiquing the fascist corporate state model.

“The basic demand for the economy in national-revolutionary socialism can only be: All power in the hands of the nation. So too is there the parallel, concrete demand for the state-structure: The state is the sovereign nation, its legislative and executive organs are the mandataries of the Volk.

Which means in consequence: the council-state.

The principle of self-government expressed within it is in no way ‘racially-foreign’ [“Volksfremd”] or typically Russian, rather it is the old ‘Germanic democracy’.

Even the German-National politician Martin Spahn says about it:

“The council-idea strives to bring spirit and active living back to our völkisch existence [völkisches Dasein] once more…

“It is consciously a construction from below. Those who live together and who work together, all who know one another and have common horizons, should lay the foundation of its administration; and only those involved in laying these foundations should afterwards help build the floors and finally may assist in placing the copestone.

“This is what Baron von Stein intended. Through this he promised the beneficial outcome of the Volk’s participation in the state.”’ – Karl Otto Paetel, Council State or Corporate State?, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this passage, Paetel asserts that the authentic essence of self-governance manifests through a council state inspired by ancient Germanic democracy. This system embodies the idea of empowering the nation by entrusting all authority to the people, with the volk representing the nation. Paetel references German national politician Martin Spahn, who promotes the council concept as a means to revitalize the spirit and vitality of Germany's volkisches Dasein.

Now, let's explore Paetel's blueprint for establishing the council state:  

“Elections to the councils (council-assemblies), which take place in an indirect form, staggered from the local council up to the Greater German Council Congress [Großdeutschen Rätekongreß], breaking up the parties, forming the administration agencies authorized to the executive – this alone provides a true reflection of the peoples’ will [Volkswillens], irrespective of distinctions of economic interest.

All working people are eligible to vote. The foundation is the working-district, i.e. the enterprises [Betriebe], while for the ‘free’ middle classes (who in Germany constitute a larger social layer) it is the residential-district. The plural voting system which prevails in Russia to the detriment of the peasants is therefore unfeasible.

The council formations establish special committees (peasant-chambers, workerchambers) on an occupational basis. All elected delegates in them, the council parliaments, and the executive bodies, are recallable at any time; are each at any time accountable to the forum responsible for their mandate; and have an income which is no higher than that of their previous profession.

 In primary elections, the village councils, city councils, and district councils are elected. The process is run by administration agencies. The next highest council assembly is not directly elected by the primary elector, but comprises delegates of the respective lower council parliaments in each Gau – which, on the basis of tribal classification, will replace the current dynastic states [dynastischen Länder]. The highest formation is the Greater German Council Congress, which fulfils legislative functions and commissions the government.

The Council Constitution, which through its Greater German foundation involves every working German in the fate of the nation, is to be straightforward and logical, without any literary flourishes. As for the bureaucracy being wound up at all, it will be liquidated. The ‘civil servant’ type perishes. The economic interests which hitherto have been fighting one another in the guise of ‘ideological parties’ (the role of syndicates in the parties) will be eliminated from the state body, the organizational apparatus of the parties shattered. (A goal, incidentally, employed by the Young German Order in its own state-building, obscured only by the somewhat romantic terms “neighborhoods”, “cure”, “chapter”.)

An entirely new social body thus arises, that which finally, as a real volonté générale, represents the unity of the nation, sprouting from life and its bearers, the generational line of the people, not falsified through party and caste, but tied to the state.

Councils in the sense demonstrated here have already been formed before, in Cromwell’s armed formations. Lenin’s model was above all the Paris Commune. And Gustav Landauer rightly pointed to the old Germanic Thing as an inspiration.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Council State or Corporate State?, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

The council system would be organized in a vertical and indirect manner, with votes being gathered from local levels and then cascading upwards to higher levels. These councils would be rooted in the foundation of enterprises or workplaces, as well as residential communities. They would consist of chambers representing workers and peasants, with members appointed based on their occupations. At the apex of this council structure lies the Greater German Council Congress, responsible for legislative functions and the appointment of the central committee. This arrangement aims to eliminate political parties and independent interest groups from the national body, merging the economy, the nation, and the volk into a unified entity known as Volksgemeinschaft.

Paetel further critiques nationalists who advocate for a "corporate state" as a means to achieve Volksgemeinschaft.

“Today, however, it has become fashionable among many ‘national’ groups to proffer the ‘corporate state’ as the successor to moribund parliamentarism.***

For that reason an entire ‘universalist worldview’ – of distinctly Catholic characteristics, by the by – has been crafted by Othmar Spann. And yet, just as little as his revolutionary-biological Epigones understood the fact that the organic, inherited Estate of the Middle Ages cannot be replaced today by the occupation, was he able to conjure away or cover up the anti-state thinking contained therein.

The ‘corporate state’, in being established on the occupations – and thus on the earning interests of its elected representatives – signifies only the perpetuation of ‘interest groups’ upon the transformation of the state’s outward form, a new opportunity for making the ‘economy’ the fate of völkisch life. It is conceivable that for some ‘estates’ answers may be found – but it is also certain that no sovereign state policy can be advanced, even if production is functioning; that, above all, the shared public responsibility for the nation will be smothered in a tangled mass of corporate organizations. The state here is, in essence, only a manufacturing company.

From here, too, the problem of leadership acquires no new meaning. Socialism and the council-structure, however, do not want to negate nor destroy leadership, merely to integrate it into service to the whole. Who will lead is whoever works most for the community, whoever works best for them. The possible starting point in the competition for proof of worth and commitment must always be the same; the result will always be different. Corresponding to aptitude and achievement, there will be leaders and led in the future, too. But this designation will provide to them the law of life and qualification, not an arbitrary separation by caste. Even the question of ‘Nordic leadership-substance’ could only be decided like so: through performance for the struggle of the entire Volk. If Nordic blood is indeed the creative, state-building, heroic element in the German Volk, then the revolution undoubtedly clears the way for it to prove its leadership capabilities for itself.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Council State or Corporate State?, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Paetel associates the corporate state with a universalist perspective influenced by Catholicism. He contends that Othmar Spann fails to grasp that the longstanding German statehood tradition since the Middle Ages cannot be supplanted by an occupational government; rather, it requires a rejuvenated manifestation of the German tribal federation in the form of a council republic. Paetel argues that the corporate state model would effectively reduce the nation to a mere economic entity, where the economy becomes the focal point of volkische existence, overshadowed by the dominance of interest groups. In a corporate state, governmental focus would primarily be on salaried workers within the complex network of corporations, akin to a CEO's role in extracting surplus value. Conversely, in a council state, leadership would be entrusted to those best equipped for the role, allowing them to demonstrate their capabilities within the hierarchical council structure. Paetel posits that if Nordic blood indeed possesses the leadership qualities as claimed by Nordicists, then organically, individuals with Nordic ancestry would naturally ascend the ranks of the council system.

Having discussed the anti-fascist aspects of Karl Otto Paetel's ideology, let's now delve into the section that addresses Karl Otto Paetel's socialist views.

Socialism

This segment explores Karl Otto Paetel's substantial socialist perspective, beginning with the chapter on Nationalist Communism.

“Here then is the mission of German National Communism: to form the cadres who are prepared, for the sake of the nation, to sever all bourgeois ties, who no longer have any relationship with the values and judgements of their fathers since they were plucked from their jobs, studies, and careers and turfed out onto the street – and who, for precisely that reason, want Germany, a Germany that is their own.

The mission of the national-revolutionary groups is to be the rallying-point of those who, in a fighting-community with the Marxist KPD, form a front of those revolutionaries and socialists who as non-materialists avow the nation as the ultimate value, but who are also ready for a radical revolution for the sake of the nation, because only that creates the preconditions for nation-building.

Three different things make this political position politically effective:

Consistent will: To be socialists in the truest sense of the word.

To become aware of oneself as non-Marxists: To be nationalists of faith and knowledge.

And the fundamental rejection of any desire and attempt to reform National Socialism.

Not reformed National Socialism, but a bloc of uncompromising young-nationalist forces in Germany, with steadfast socialist will, unwavering nationalist faith, recognition of the practical situation conferred through Versailles, fighting comradeship with the KPD.

Only in this way (and not in the fashion being muttered about today by those who, in reality, only mean National Socialism without Hitler, and who want to pull the rug out from under the KPD) is the formation of an organized German National Communism worthwhile. The KPD will become its compatriot, and fascism and quasi fascism will find in it their most dangerous opponent. It will have to step forward when the time is right.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Nationalist Communism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Here, Paetel proposes that national revolutionaries should unite with the Marxist KPD to create a united front, while also maintaining their independence as nationalist revolutionaries. The goal is not to reform national socialism, but to establish an organized German national communism. Paetel emphasizes that national communists are non-Marxists, but rather nationalists driven by faith and knowledge.

Now, let's delve deeper into “The Face of National Communism.”

“In outline, German National Communism proclaims that:

We recognize the necessity of the German socialist revolution. It is the spiritual transformation that determines the economic, political, and cultural features of our time; it is in effect the revolution of the workers, peasants, and proletarianized middle-classes.

We commit ourselves to the nation. It is our last political value as a fateful expression of völkisch community.

We commit ourselves to the Volk as the natural ethnic cultural community, in contrast to ethnically-destructive Western civilization.

We commit ourselves to the intrinsic meaning of German folkdom.

We commit ourselves to a socialist planned economy which, after breaking the capitalist order, binds Volk and Nation into an organic economic structure and as a social economy constitutes the foundation of state sovereignty.

The fulfilment of our aims is the Free Greater-German Peoples’ Council-State as the expression of the self-government of the productive Volk.

The means of production are to be transferred to the nation as common property, and the nation’s fundamental ownership of land and soil to be declared.” – Karl Otto Paetel, The Face of National Communism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this passage, Paetel emphasizes that German National Communism advocates for the German socialist revolution, loyalty to the nation, support for the Volk as the inherent ethnic cultural community in opposition to the ethnically harmful Western civilization, endorsement of a socialist planned economy, and endorsement of a People’s council state as a manifestation of the self-governance of the productive Volk. These principles underscore the aspiration for a self-ruling socialist Volk that will form the nation following the revolution.

Paetel goes on to elaborate on the implications of these principles.

“Consequently:

Nationalization of all large-scale and medium-scale industrial enterprises.

Immediate, extensive settlement of the East with expropriation of the large estates.

Partial awarding of smallholdings to second and third peasants’ sons and to farm-workers as Reich Entails.

Partial socialization of state-goods.

Replacement of Roman private law with German common law.

State monopoly on foreign trade. Nationalization of the monetary system. For the transitional period after the revolution, autarchy of the economic region of Russia-Germany; German autarchy as the ultimate goal.” – Karl Otto Paetel, The Face of National Communism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Paetel outlines here that under this plan, all large and medium-sized industrial enterprises would be taken over by the state, there would be immediate and extensive resettlement in the east with the expropriation of large estates and distribution of smallholdings to second and third sons of peasants and farm workers. Additionally, there would be partial socialization of state-owned properties, the transition from Roman private law to German common law, a state monopoly on foreign trade, nationalization of the monetary system, and the pursuit of Russia-Germany self-sufficiency with German self-sufficiency as the ultimate objective. These are undeniably far-reaching and radical communist proposals.

Paetel elaborates further:

“The situation today calls for:

Ruthless struggle against all foreign-policy enslavement-treaties, from Versailles to Young, until they are torn to shreds.

Struggle against all aspects of the Weimar system and its sanctioning of external servitude, from Hilferding to Hitler, until it is annihilated.

Struggle against Roman politics in German territory.

Struggle for a racially-appropriate religiosity attuned to the German people as a pre-condition for völkisch unity.

A policy of alliance with the Soviet Union.

Supporting revolutionary movements to create a united front of all oppressed classes and nations.

The situation today necessitates:

The most severe execution of the class-struggle of the oppressed against all who represent the private-capitalist dogma of the sanctity of private property.

That is the only way to the German sovereign socialist nation.

To safeguard the revolution against seizure by International Capital and against counter-revolutionary aspirations, the revolutionary Peoples’ Militia [Volksheer] shall replace the mercenary army at the moment of revolution, and the indivisibility of Greater Germany is to be proclaimed upon the establishment of the socialist state.

To achieve these goals, this is what is necessary today:

A fighting-community of revolutionary nationalism with the class-party of the revolutionary proletariat, the KPD.” – Karl Otto Paetel, The Face of National Communism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this context, Karl Otto Paetel presents the roadmap towards establishing a sovereign socialist nation in Germany. The initial steps involve abolishing the Versailles and Young treaties, followed by a resistance against all elements of Weimar Germany, ranging from Hitler to Hilferding. The nation would combat Roman political influences in Germany, including fascism, advocate for a religion that aligns with the nation's ethnicity as a prerequisite for Volkisch unity, and strive for a policy of collaboration with the Soviet Union. This scenario calls for a rigorous implementation of the class struggle, which entails replacing the capitalist mercenary army with a revolutionary people’s militia or Volksheer. To realize these objectives, it is imperative to forge a united front of revolutionary nationalists with the working-class party, the KPD.

Next, we will delve into the chapter "Why not KPD?" which elucidates the reasons behind German National Bolsheviks not aligning with the party and highlights the distinctions between revolutionary nationalism and revolutionary Marxism.

“As these theses demonstrate, revolutionary nationalism and the communist movement today are unquestionably on the same side of the political frontline in the struggle against fascism and capital and for socialism and national liberation.

Why are we not in the KPD?

Revolutionary German nationalism strives for, as its ultimate political goal, the sovereign German nation, existing in a community of free states of peoples [Völker] independent from one another.

Revolutionary Marxism – the KPD – strives for, as its ultimate goal, the classless society, which (through the slow death of the state and the amalgamation of nations) unites the peoples into a higher unity.

Revolutionary nationalism affirms the class-struggle as an organic upheaval in the leadership of the body of the Volk, which by replacing the obsolete ruling-classes reorients the youthful new state to a leadership based on the political and social functions of the whole.

Revolutionary Marxism views history as a succession of class struggles, with victorious participation in such struggles as the means by which the international proletariat can overcome international capitalism with international socialism. It recognizes the bondage of class over the boundaries of the primary reality that is the folkdom.

Some today are fighters for national freedom and class-fighters for the sake of the nation, others are both for the sake of a classless society.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Why Not KPD?, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this context, revolutionary nationalism and Marxism diverge in their perspectives on the concept of the nation. Revolutionary nationalism envisions a union of independent socialist states, while Marxism aims for a classless society where national distinctions are erased. Marxism interprets history as a series of class conflicts, believing that the international working class can only defeat global capitalism through international socialism. On the other hand, revolutionary nationalism sees history as a clash between nations, viewing the class struggle as a natural evolution within the Volk's leadership. As a result, nationalists advocate for national liberation and engage in class struggle for the nation's benefit, whereas Marxists advocate for both a classless society.

“Revolutionary nationalism strives for the implementation of a socialist planned economy on the basis of autarchy (for the transition to a German-Russian autarchy!), for the elimination of private ownership over the means of production, and for the nationalization of land and soil, all as a precondition for the sovereignty of the nation to be created by the revolution.

Revolutionary Marxism strives for the planned economic organization of the world, negating autarkic economic areas by eliminating private ownership of the means of production and socializing land and soil. Socialist construction in a country (Russia) is only conceivable as a preliminary stage.

Revolutionary nationalism does not believe in the possibility of eternal peace, in a humanity capable of nullifying the antagonisms between different peoples (friend/enemy-principle*).

Revolutionary Marxism strives for a pacified world, guaranteed after the abolition of economic antagonisms.

Revolutionary nationalism strives for an appropriately German solution to the peasant question [Bauernfrage]. It is of the conviction that an integration of the small peasants into the planned economy through a private-property-abolishing fiefsystem must preserve the ‘eternal category of the peasant’, and must be utilizable by the state as a reservoir of power.

Revolutionary Marxism strives to liquidate the ‘regressive class’ through collectivizing and rationalizing farming operations, with the end goal being a synthesis with the worker into a higher, ‘classless’ human type. (Russia)

Revolutionary nationalism understands the potency of the Idea, the need for religious renewal and the existence of irrational forces; it sees in the idea of the nation its ultimate goal and in folkdom a fatefully imminent power. All political and economic imperatives are the means of giving this idea form and reality.

Revolutionary Marxism, building on historical materialism, interprets the processes of human history from their economic conditions and assigns the ‘ideological superstructure’ to the secondary role. Belief in the irrational is to be (and certainly will be) overcome.

Revolutionary nationalism is anti-fascist because fascism, aside from its racially-alien characteristics [fremdvölkischen Zügen], does not understand how to incorporate the leadership of the proletariat; in its economic order is only a reform of capitalism; and in its corporatist state-form is a camouflaged dictatorship over the working Volk which thereby perpetuates the division of the nation into ruler and ruled.

Revolutionary Marxism sees in fascism a militant self-defence movement for the structure and interests of the capitalist system, directing the movements of the petitbourgeois masses with pseudo-ideologies formed for the purpose of its own preservation.

Revolutionary nationalism strives for a political and economic alliance with the Soviet Union, as the only European opponent of the Versailles system and as a socialist neighbouring-state – on these grounds it fights against any intent of intervention against Soviet Russia.

Revolutionary Marxism calls for the “Defense of the Soviet Union” as the “Fatherland of the Working People” and the beginning of world communism.

Revolutionary nationalism rejects any intention of acquiring colonies, in recognition of the fundamental rights of oppressed peoples to national freedom and in accordance with its own watchword of national sovereignty. On the path towards a community of free peoples it hails the liberation movements of India, China, Egypt, etc., as allies in the fight against the signatory-powers of Versailles, just as it hails the international struggle of the proletariat against international fixed capital.

Revolutionary Marxism hails the national-revolutionary movements of colonial- and semi-colonial peoples as precursors of the proletarian world-revolution.

Revolutionary nationalism resists the use of the racial-question [Rassenfrage] for the establishment of a born-to-rule master-race; rejects race-dogmatism as a criterion for foreign-policy; and in the construction of socialism demands as evidence for the value of race not entitlement but achievement.

Revolutionary Marxism sees in race an economic category that receives its true meaning in a classless society, and rejects its usage in forming political slogans.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Why Not KPD?, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Revolutionary Marxism sees the establishment of socialism within a nation as a starting point, aiming for global socialist planning. In contrast, revolutionary nationalism sees the nation achieving socialism as the ultimate objective, advocating for self-sufficient socialist trade zones. When it comes to the idea of everlasting peace, Marxism envisions a peaceful world through the unity of nations, while revolutionary nationalism doubts the possibility of achieving eternal peace due to the enduring presence of the friend/enemy dynamic in the politics of sovereign socialist states. Revolutionary nationalism emphasizes irrational forces and the power of ideas, while Marxism considers the ideological superstructure as secondary and believes that irrational beliefs can be overcome. Both revolutionary nationalism and Marxism oppose fascism, with revolutionary nationalism criticizing it for being racially foreign and reminiscent of Roman politics in Germany. They also share a critique of fascism's corporate system as a mere reform of capitalism, leading to a dictatorship of capital over the working class and a division within the nation, disregarding the concept of a unified community.

Marxism aimed for a cooperative relationship with the Soviet Union to kickstart worldwide communism, while revolutionary nationalism sought an alliance with the Soviet Union primarily because it was the only European country opposing the Versailles Treaty. Revolutionary nationalism rejects colonialism based on the principles of national sovereignty, extending this stance to support national liberation movements in countries like India, Egypt, and China. Marxism also supports anti-colonial struggles but sees them as a precursor to a global working-class revolution. While Marxism rejects the use of racial distinctions in political slogans, viewing race as an economic category that gains significance in a classless society, revolutionary nationalism considers race an important factor but disavows the idea of a superior master race. Instead, it values racial contributions based on achievements rather than entitlement in the mission of socialist development.

“Revolutionary nationalism sees in the council-structure the self-government of the productive Volk, the guarantee of political accountability and economic control of the Volksgemeinschaft, presaged in the early forms of Germanic rule.

Revolutionary Marxism strives, through the council-structure’s division into executive and legislative powers, to move towards the eventual superfluity of the state.

Already in these few comparisons, and putting aside more detailed descriptions of their individual points (the number and scope of such examples can be supplemented as needed), it follows that the world-goals of nationalism and of Marxism are thoroughly different. It nonetheless also follows, however, that the necessities of today’s politics yield a range of demands and insights from Marxism and nationalism which coincide (class-struggle, revolution, socialism, councils, foreign-policy, anti-fascism – although their rationales for them are different).

Young Nationalism, however, has a mission for tomorrow extending beyond this front today. It is: unity of faith and blood with the political principles of formation.

Under this insight, the small cadres of ‘National Bolshevist’ nationalism are formed today alongside and not within the KPD. Nevertheless they affirm their affiliation with it, because notwithstanding the differing objectives, the Communist Party in Germany today is the only mass-factor:

Against the Versailles System – Against the Roman Counter-Reformation – Against the drive to intervene against Russia – Against the fascist deception of the people – For the socialist revolution – For Greater Germany!” – Karl Otto Paetel, Why Not KPD?, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Marxism aims to utilize the council system to eventually render the state obsolete, while revolutionary nationalism aims to employ the council structure to achieve the concept of Volksgemeinschaft. It is clear that on matters such as class struggle, revolution, socialism, councils, foreign policy, and anti-fascism, revolutionary nationalism and Marxism share common ground, albeit with distinct underlying reasons. Therefore, due to their shared objectives but diverging long-term goals, it was logical for the GSRN to maintain its distinct identity from the KPD while still collaborating with it.

Next, we will transition to the section titled "Happiness or Freedom?"

“On the point of whether decisions should be oriented from the individual or from the collective, another of Dr. Hiller’s questions will be answered. Hiller in his work on social-revolutionary nationalism quotes the sentence (which, incidentally, does not originate from Ernst Jünger like the quote before, but is a comment of my own*): “We stand on the side of the insurrectionary proletariat for the sake of the nation, not for the sake of few ideas of humanitarian happiness.” He then asks:

“These bringers of misery, these outspoken brutes, these monsters who do not hide that they are monsters, does their ideal nation require that its members be miserable?”

No, Dr. Hiller, no! However: In Saint-Just’s† speech against Danton, for example, there is a passage which shows what we mean:

“The love of Fatherland is a great and terrible thing. It is without mercy, without fear, without respect for the individual when it comes to the public good. This love brought Regulus to Carthage and Marat to the Pantheon.”

We are socialists. We support the revolution, the class-struggle, the socialization of the means of production, the nationalization of land and soil, a state structure on the principle of self-administration.

Why? Because we see in these demands – which represent the political position of an enslaved, proletarianized Volk, a semi-colony of the foreign imperialists – the only path forwards for carrying out the integration of the oppressed, disenfranchised, homeland-less proletarians, which is necessary for the restoration of the nation’s sovereignty. For the sake of the nation, for the sake of its people: Socialists! That does not mean the lunatic wish to see these proletarians miserable in their new state of affairs. But indeed, we do demand from the individual, as Saint-Just demands, as is done in Russia, a sacrifice of happiness and affluence for the development of the community, which, through its freedom and power, will again be capable of giving happiness and freedom to its members.

We want to smash economic liberalism to pieces, to free the economy for the totality: the nation. As the socialist nation liberates its members, the path towards cultural assets as well as to political rights and workers’ participation in the economy – in the context of the ‘We’ – is conceived of as being for rather than against the individual. Only we echo Saint-Just: When the call sounds that “The Fatherland is in danger”, then these ‘rights’ are handed back to the nation, everyone divesting himself of them.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Happiness or Freedom?, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

Dr. Hiller criticizes the National Bolsheviks for being blunt and seen as purveyors of suffering because they do not adhere to the idealistic notions of universal happiness. This does not imply that they wish for people to be unhappy, but rather that they are willing to forego some personal happiness for the greater good of the community, ultimately striving towards genuine social well-being.

Next, we will proceed to the section titled "Socialism."

“We recapitulate:

We are socialists.

That means:

At the moment of revolution, we demand:

1. Nationalization of land and soil. Distribution of the large estates. All land-ownership in the future will be the mandate of the nation.

2. Transfer of all large-scale and medium-scale enterprises of industry, banking, department stores, mineral resources, mining, and transportation into the hands of the Volk.

3. State-planned economy with a monopoly of foreign trade.

4. Weapons in the hands of the whole: establishment of a Peoples’ Militia [Volksheeres].

Any doctrines of profit-sharing and private management which guarantee, even partially, the private ownership of the means of production and the commodity character of land, are semi-fascist diversionary manoeuvres.

A planned economy like that demanded by Werner Sombart* in his Future of Capitalism [“Zukunft des Kapitalismus”], which envisages “private property and social property, private economy and social economy”, is one of the many half-measures desired today, for all intents and purposes, only as a last resort – including by the Tat people.

This includes primarily Strasser’s ‘German Socialism’ – but also for example the ‘Possedism’ of the Wehrwolf.‡

The fundamental law of true nationalist socialism remains: the economy in the hands of the nation.

This law applies as much to industrial enterprise as to the question of property, but above all, however, does it serve as justification for autarchy and the monopoly over foreign trade.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Socialism, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this passage, Karl Otto Paetel articulates his vision for socialism with clarity. He advocates for the nationalization of land and the redistribution of large estates to ensure that all future land ownership is held by the nation. Additionally, he calls for the transfer of major industrial, banking, retail, mining, and transportation enterprises into the control of the working class. This setup could resemble a unified council syndicate under state ownership. Paetel advocates for a centrally planned economy with a state monopoly on foreign trade, a common feature in socialist nations. He also proposes the establishment of a people's militia or Volksheeres for universal armament among the populace.

Paetel strongly opposes any profit-sharing schemes or private management that allow for even partial private ownership of the means of production and the commodification of land, labeling them as semi-fascist tactics. He criticizes works like Werner Sombart's "Future of Capitalism" and Strasser's "German Socialism" for promoting such diversionary strategies. Paetel asserts that true nationalist socialism's core principle is to have the economy under national control.

Having concluded this segment discussing socialism, we will now proceed to the section focusing on the peasantry and the rural issue.

Position on The Peasantry

This section will be brief, covering two chapters that both explore the rural issue. The initial chapter we will examine is "Rural Revolution," which delves into the potential for a revolution within the peasant class.

“The new nationalism, born in the hearts of those who no longer have any connection to the bourgeois lifestyle out of clear recognition that no political dynamism can be expected from it, is beginning today to turn its hopeful gaze over the forces of the revolution towards the Landvolk movement – that from there, where the strength and substance of the German people are still rooted, tomorrow shall be built.

And a romanticism begins to unfold which, nourished by the myth of the black flags, nourished by the legendary myth of the name Claus Heim, disdainfully turns itself away from the uprooted metropolitan masses, disdainfully turns itself away from the materialistic slogans of the proletariat, believing in the new rebirth of völkisch life from the soil, and reckoning that it can dispense with worker, city, and asphalt.

But that perspective completely overlooks that the driving forces behind the will to resist, especially in the case of the peasantry and the Landvolk’s every attempt at self-help, are actually in the end derived solely from the personal plight of the individuals in question.

There, where peace is driven from the farmyard, the lease collected under compulsion, the farmer reaches for the scythe and drubs the bailiffs from the yard. There, where the Jew fleeces the individual, völkisch self-assertiveness awakens.

It is in large part the same misery that also unites the proletarian under the revolutionary banners. His will, too, that things should be different, better, cannot be separated from the misery that preys on his mind. But there is something more there which the peasants’ resistance, wherever it is organized, is still missing today, but which has left the worker a fifty year worker’s movement in his blood: a sense of mission. When the ‘Internationale’ begins to sound amidst the march of the metropolitan columns, then the hard-driven prole [Prolet] feels within himself the burning desire that he may someday fare better, the dogged certainty that he himself is the bearer of a historical trend, a member of a history-shaping force. The peasant, however, is – still today – revolutionary only out of hardship, not out of sense of mission. The battle against the revolution, therefore, will be made within the metropolis.

But certainly never against the peasants. A ‘white ring’ of the country, under fascist flags, would be the starvation of the revolutionized city.

The object therefore is to procure the peasants as the second wave of the revolution – and also, of course, to interest them economically.” – Karl Otto Paetel, Rural Revolution, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this context, Karl Otto Paetel emphasizes that while the rural revolution holds significance, the primary focus remains on the urban revolution. Unlike the proletarian class, the peasant lacks a sense of a grand historical purpose. Peasants tend to be revolutionary due to hardships, whereas the proletariat sees itself as carrying out historical mandates and constructing socialism. Nevertheless, it is crucial to involve the peasantry in the revolutionary cause, as a fascist stronghold in rural areas could lead to the downfall of the urban revolution during the ultimate confrontation.

Next, we will transition to the chapter titled "The Peasant Question in Germany."

“National Communism cannot consider preaching a ‘reformed National Socialism’, but nor can it consider preaching a reformed Marxism. The suggestions that nationalism offers on the subject of the peasant question are only in regards to the necessity of not destroying the eternal category of the soil-bound peasant; never can they undermine socialist economic planning.

But Dr. Rosikat is right when he states:

“The German peasant thinks not at all of voluntarily relinquishing his self-sufficient economy. His ideal is not like the proletarian’s: self-abolition as a social stratum. On the contrary, his is: autonomy at any price! The advantages that communism promises him hold no selling power over his desire to work independently on his own soil.

“The communists like to refer to Russia. There the peasants followed Bolshevism, so why not also one day in Germany? To answer, I may be permitted to point to the following differences:

“1. In Russia the peasantry has been won by an enormous gift of land. In Germany this gift can only turn out poorly. (Compare the “Programme of the 3rd International”, IV, 8, sec. 4).

“2. In Russia the peasantry did not know – in contrast to today’s Germans – that this gift was only of a provisional nature.

“3. Russia under communism remains, in contrast to Germany, agriculturally self-sufficient. Its farming as such is not endangered.

“But is the peasantry not in any case doomed to be merged into large-scale enterprises because they are technically superior?

“Answer: Not in Germany. The sheer superiority of large farms can really only be demonstrated in extensive grain-producing and livestock-farming areas (for example, America, Australia, Russia). In the expansive low-mountain areas of Germany they are not at all effective. In the intensively-cultivated German lowlands they are present in areas of arable crops, although not to such an extent that they would not be more than compensated for through the voluntary overtime that the peasant performs in the interest of his own self-sufficiency.”’ – Karl Otto Paetel, The Peasant Question in Germany, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this context, Karl Otto Paetel distinguishes the peasant question in Germany from the demands of the proletariat and the peasant question in Russia. While the proletariat seeks the elimination of its class identity, the peasant prioritizes autonomy above all else. Paetel also highlights that the absorption of the peasant class by large-scale enterprises is not an unavoidable outcome in Germany. This is due to the more suitable farming and soil conditions that favor smaller plots, unlike countries such as America, Australia, and Russia, which have vast expanses of land.

“The peasantry is capable of agreeing to a social order which fulfils the total elimination of capitalist class-rule without necessarily having to sacrifice itself. It can help establish a socialism in which the means of production of all capitalists and large-landowners, in addition to the entire transportation, finance, banking, and wholesale sectors, are socialized; foreign trade is monopolized; and voluntary, state subsidized cooperatives flourish in the non-capitalist economic sector. The German peasantry is furthermore well on its way to overcoming the liberal conception of property, and to comprehending its right of possession to the soil as the mandate of the nation; it is entitled furthermore to exercise these rights of possession, turning them towards the fulfilment of large-scale tasks. Here an independent development occurs in the peasantry, a progression towards a communal-economic mode of thought, which unfortunately, because it retains the form of the individual economy, is misunderstood by Marxism as reactionary and feudalist.

An order which exhibits the above-mentioned characteristics may justifiably, and without the distortion unfortunately so common today, be described as “socialist”. It means not only the breaking of capitalist class-rule, the eradication of the contradictions between oppressive and oppressed classes, but also the rule of the ideals of Plan and Community – because the working nation holds every commanding height of the economy firmly under its control.

Thus is the small peasant farm, maintained within the framework of the planned economy, cooperatively bound, with second and third farmers’ sons, farm laborers, and settlement-craving city-dwellers on the expropriated estates of the big landowners (alongside state-owned farms, but not collectives, required partly due to the soil properties of the land, as in Russia), the demanded German form of farming enterprise in socialism.” – Karl Otto Paetel, The Peasant Question in Germany, The National Bolshevist Manifesto

In this context, Karl Otto Paetel describes a state-subsidized cooperative agricultural model that operates within a planned framework. This approach maintains the structure of individual farming while eliminating the land's commodity aspect. It is important to note that this system should not be misconstrued as reactionary or feudalistic by Marxist standards. The objective is to preserve the autonomy of the peasant while transforming agriculture into cooperative entities guided by a centralized plan.

With the conclusion of this final section of the video, we will now transition to our closing remarks.

Concluding Thoughts

In my final thoughts on Paetel, I find him to be mostly aligned with my views, but there are certain points where I disagree with him. One such instance is his belief that nationalism derives its power from the concept itself, which I consider to be a misguided notion. Paetel, in my opinion, was a confused materialist who attempted to elevate an ideal, the nation, above material realities. However, in doing so, he inadvertently highlighted something that Marx, Engels, and Lenin sought to obscure - the influence of nationalism as a tangible force. Nations assert their presence in history based on the evolution of consciousness within a population, a process influenced by material factors like political and economic integration of various groups. As nations form, a collective "national myth" emerges, shaped by material conditions and institutional development, ultimately becoming a potent force guiding human behavior. Viewing the nation as a material force rather than just an abstract idea forms the foundation for a materialist approach to national communism.

Another aspect where Paetel's ideas diverge from mine is his advocacy for neo-paganism. While it is true that Christianity, as a religion with Roman origins, may conflict with national goals and the pursuit of socialism, due to its belief in overcoming "fallen wills" through divine intervention, and the church's tendency to prioritize its own interests over societal welfare, I do not believe that imposing a neo-pagan belief system is the solution. Instead, I propose the secularization of churches by redistributing their wealth and power, diminishing their influence in politics, and allowing organic religious developments to flourish naturally. Whether society leans towards atheism, paganism, revived Christianity, Islam, or any other belief system, it should evolve authentically without artificial imposition. As long as clerics do not pose a threat post-revolution, there is no need to revive or sustain their role, as their class is destined to fade away in the progression towards a new form of spirituality.

While there are aspects where Karl Otto Paetel's viewpoints are justified, he astutely pointed out to internationalists the impracticality of a borderless world communism and eternal peace, citing the enduring influence of the friend/enemy principle, sovereignty, and the essence of politics. He argued that a global community of sovereign socialist states would inevitably emerge following a proletarian revolution, not only due to political realist considerations but also because revolutionary transformation cannot occur simultaneously worldwide, hence the concept of "socialism in one country." Even in a scenario of nations merging, new distinctions would likely arise as self-realization progresses through a series of negations, an inherent historical law. Consequently, the friend/enemy principle, the political concept, and the continuation of politics through alternative means such as war will persist, suggesting that eternal peace is neither feasible nor necessarily desirable. Since class struggle propels historical progress, eternal peace could signify perpetual stagnation. The emergence of a community of sovereign socialist states post-revolution implies the presence of national divisions within the global economy, albeit in a social and planned manner. This socialist world economy might manifest as a state of "warlike peace" or "peaceful war," where nations engage in competition, cooperation, and occasional conflicts. As long as the friend/enemy principle endures, the potential or even the necessity of war remains, despite being far from ideal. This reality is exemplified by conflicts between countries like Vietnam and the People's Republic of China, as well as between the People's Republic of China and the Soviet Union.

Regarding Karl Otto Paetel's socialist principles, his approach bears resemblance to Sorel's ideas by implementing a nationalized worker's council system with a decentralized nature based on the principle of decentralized unity. This council system mirrors Sorel's vision of industrial federations that are autonomous, self-governing, and eventually united within the framework of producer associations. Paetel's proposition for cooperative reform of peasant farms appears to be a beneficial step towards collectivization, maintaining individual economic structures while aligning them with the state plan. The council system is seen as a more efficient alternative to a corporate state, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy and empowering workers with direct control over production.

In summary, Karl Otto Paetel, despite his imperfections, offers valuable insights for socialists. His critiques of borderless world communism deserve thoughtful consideration. Additionally, he provides a deep understanding of National Bolshevism as an ideology, distinct from a mere buzzword used to label someone as fascist. I recommend that individuals explore the National Bolshevik manifesto firsthand to gain a comprehensive understanding of his ideas.