National Bolshevism: The History of Red-Brownism

by Zoltanous

Introduction

During the 20th century, conservative factions typically viewed the Soviet Union and its associated states, movements, and liberation fronts with suspicion and animosity. Right-leaning groups often sided with the Soviets' enemies, which ranged from reactionary elements and White Russian émigrés to German Nazis and the United States during the Cold War. The right's aversion to the Soviet Union stemmed from various factors, including its official stance on atheism and early efforts to suppress Christianity. Nevertheless, a shift was noted in the mid-1930s as the Soviet Union appeared to transition towards a more socially conservative and nationalistic stance, moving away from its earlier progressive and internationalist agenda.

The Soviet Union was a consistent supporter of nationalist movements in the "third world," backing their fights for independence, especially against colonial powers like Britain, France, and the United States. Some Western right-wing figures, finding common ground in their adversaries, started to support pro-Soviet movements, revolutions, and regimes. They came to view the Soviet Union, once an enemy, as a possible ally in upholding traditions, cultural identity, and national sovereignty. As the Western world became more liberal and globalist, moving away from traditionalist values, these 20th-century conservatives considered the Soviet Union as a possible guardian of these ideals. This text seeks to explore the historical concept known as National Bolshevism, providing a neutral examination without casting ethical judgments on those involved.

“The world revolution, however, will not be that which Marx envisaged; it will rather be that which Nietzsche foresaw.”

— Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Das Dritte Reich

The German National Bolsheviks of The German Conservative Revolution and Nazi-Bolshevism

In the aftermath of World War I, Germany experienced defeat and subsequent hardships, including territorial cessions, economic setbacks, and pervasive foreign influence from powers like Britain, America, France, and various international corporations. These conditions prompted many German nationalists and conservatives to perceive their country as a victim of external imperialistic forces. Seeking to counter this perceived imperialism and capitalism, they looked for solidarity with other colonized peoples and the Soviet Union. These sentiments were particularly strong among those associated with the German Conservative Revolution, especially its national-revolutionary wing. Prominent figures within this movement included Ernst Niekisch, Ernst Jünger, Ernst von Salomon, Paul Eltzbacher, Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Heinrich Laufenberg, Fritz Wolffheim, and others, with many identifying as National Bolsheviks or holding similar views.

This German movement began in 1917, predating the similar Russian movement by two years. In contrast to the Russian National Bolsheviks and Eurasianists, who were mainly from the right, this German group had significant representation from the left, including members from the Social Democratic party (SPD), the Independent Social Democratic party of Germany (USPD), and the Communist party of Germany (KPD). Key figures like Ernst Niekisch, Heinrich Laufenberg, and Fritz Wolffheim were involved in socialist and communist revolutions in 1918, taking control in cities like Hamburg and Bavaria. Laufenberg and Wolffheim, in particular, started to develop their blend of nationalist and socialist ideologies among workers and soldiers in Hamburg, aspiring to a revolution that would unify Germany and free it from the influence of Anglo-American capitalism. They proposed an economy based on decentralized workers' councils.

“On the basis of which criteria will the proletarian dictatorship in Germany proceed with the overthrow of the bourgeoisie? In light of Germany’s high industrial level, the central emphasis lies with the masses of workers in the giant factories, masses who are united in a federalist manner by the capitalist production process itself and who will in the main provide the human basis for the future economy as well as for public reconstruction. For the communist state, which represents nothing other than the organization of the entire Volk by the working-class, these huge concerns are therefore the first cells of its existence, from which the organization of economy and state emanate. They have the preliminary task of bringing the proletarian class organization to life within their enterprises, across the dividing lines of the parties, and of developing out of it the initial stages of the council system via the Works Councils and the Local Councils. Insofar as those working masses who are not united in the large enterprises are concerned, organization will be carried out on the basis of residential districts in order to achieve the establishment of the Local Councils, whereby membership in the proletarian class organization constitutes the prerequisite for the right to vote, with this membership being conditional entirely upon the performance of productive or socially-beneficial labor. The forcible exclusion of all parties and other associations from the electoral process, which constitutes the basis of the council constitution, is the first organizational task of the proletarian dictatorship.”

— Heinrich Laufenberg and Fritz Wolffheim, Revolutionary People’s War or Counter-Revolutionary Civil War? First Communist Address to The German Proletariat

Despite their innovative approach, Laufenberg, Wolffheim, and their faction within the KPD in Hamburg faced resistance from many nationalists who were wary of their communist leanings, and in some cases, their movement was discredited due to personal backgrounds, as seen when a völkisch leader objected to Wolffheim's Jewish heritage. Ultimately, they were ousted from their council positions by more moderate Social Democrats. Subsequently, Lenin, similar to his stance on the Russian National Bolsheviks, criticized them in "Left-Wing" Communism: An Infantile Disorder. As a result, Karl Radek expelled them from the Communist party due to their decentralized council concept and nationalist ideals. Ironically, a few years later, Radek adopted many of their nationalist positions to appeal to nationalist workers and certain left-wing elements of the National Socialist party (NSDAP).

Amidst the convergence of individuals with pro-Soviet leanings from diverse ideological backgrounds, the emergence of German National Bolshevism showcased an intriguing fusion. Paul Eltsbacher, a notable figure with right-wing origins, played a significant role in this movement. As an economic professor of German Jewish descent, Eltsbacher perceived the Treaty of Versailles as a severe blow to German sovereignty. Consequently, he advocated for an alliance with the Soviets against Western powers, reinstating the Kaiser, and the nationalization of the economy as the means to regain sovereignty. Importantly, Eltsbacher distanced himself from advocating a dictatorship of the proletariat and aimed to avoid the excessive violence witnessed during the Russian Revolution.

On April 2nd, 1919, Eltsbacher articulated his thoughts in an article published in the German National party Newspaper, proclaiming, "There is only one way to end this affair. That way is Bolshevism." However, similar to the fate of Laufenberg and Wolffhiem, Eltsbacher faced expulsion from his party and encountered blacklisting from numerous conservative groups. In contrast to the Hamburg Communists and the Conservative Revolutionaries, this marked the conclusion of Eltsbacher's narrative. In response to Eltsbacher's ideas, Hans von Seeckt presented proposals aimed at fostering closer relations between Germany and the Soviet Union. This effort triggered a campaign of pro-Soviet propaganda orchestrated by influential figures, such as Alexander von Falkenhausen and Baroness Elsa von Freytag-Loringhoven. Otto Gotsche, a celebrated historian and an authority on Eastern affairs, also lent his support to the idea of enhanced cooperation with Soviet Russia. He emphasized the necessity of inviting Soviet troops to Germany as a strategic step to dismantle the Versailles system. During the Polish-Soviet War, Seeckt actively maintained communication with Leon Trotsky, the Chairman of the Revolutionary Military Council of the Soviet Republic. Their discussions revolved around the prospect of dismantling the Versailles system through a collaborative effort with the Red Army. However, despite initial diplomatic progress, the envisioned alliance between Germany and Russia failed to materialize as anticipated.

A significant milestone occurred with the signing of the Rappel Treaty in April 1922, signifying the resumption of full diplomatic relations between Germany and Russia. This treaty served as a reaffirmation of the longstanding Russophile Prussian-German tradition. Nonetheless, it encountered opposition and criticism, notably from sources like the Völkischer Beobachter, which denounced it as the "Rappel crime of Rathenau." The newspaper depicted the treaty as a personal union between Jewish financial oligarchy and international Jewish Bolshevism. After 1923, military contacts between Germany and Russia were established discreetly. General Werner von Blomberg, a prominent military leader, expressed his enthusiasm for maintaining close military relations with Kliment Voroshilov, a notable figure within the Soviet military. Despite these interactions, the broader vision of a robust alliance between the Reichswehr and the Red Army failed to materialize.

Following their expulsion from the KDP, Laufenberg and Wolffhiem played a role in the formation of the German Communist Workers party (KAPD) in April 1920, which became a significant challenge to the KDP. However, they were once again expelled, this time due to pressure from both the KDP and Vladimir Lenin. This led Laufenberg to denounce Lenin and his New Economic Policy (NEP) as a "betrayal" of the Bolshevik Revolution. Subsequently, Laufenberg and Wolffhiem had only a few small revolutionary circles associated with them, most notably the Bund der Kommunisten. They had a limited following of a few hundred loyal supporters, and Laufenberg eventually retired from politics, passing away in 1932. Wolffhiem remained active in politics and regained prominence among the Conservative and National Revolutionaries, as well as the subsequent generation of National Bolsheviks, who became more influential than the original National Bolsheviks themselves.

An additional faction of note is Werwolf (also known as Armed Wolf), a collective of German veterans from World War I, spearheaded by Fritz Kloppe. Established in 1923, Werwolf evolved from the Steel Helmet group, serving as its youth division with a focus on military preparedness for future members. Its ranks were filled predominantly with ex-Freikorps fighters, former military officers, and reserves. They distanced themselves from the Steel Helmets due to a perceived preoccupation of the latter with upholding middle-class interests. Werwolf was characterized by intense nationalism and a declared readiness to lay down their lives for Germany without hesitation.

Werwolf propagated an economic concept termed "Possedism," coined by Kloppe in 1931. This concept was aimed at transforming property relationships, contesting that capitalism allowed for a concentration of property that bred rampant individualism and a neglect of national interests. Kloppe's vision involved the state nationalizing land and assets, then distributing these for individual "possession" as broadly as possible. The ambition was to ensure that every German could have an inheritable share in the nation's land or industry, thus cultivating a collective sense of ownership and dedication to the national welfare.

“In other words, we want not a struggle of an occupational strata, one that is exploited or is under threat by High Finance, against another, but instead a joint uprising by all peasants, workers, and soldiers – the last of which being a reference to all those people from other professional classes who regard the struggle against the enemies of the German Volk as their most important purpose in life.

The Volk in its totality, the Nation, is to have proprietary right over all possession. As proprietor, the Nation consequently can exercise the right of intervention at any time and, indeed, against anyone.^”

— Fritz Kloppe's speech on "Possedism" at the Bonn am Rhein Whitsunday Celebrations, 23rd – 25th May 1931

Werwolf's messaging vehemently opposed capitalism and plutocratic systems. Initially self-identifying as National-Revolutionary, their ideology harbored pronounced elements of revolutionary socialism, making the term National Bolshevik a more fitting descriptor. They also supported the idea of strengthening ties between Germany and the Soviet Union. At its peak between 1924 and 1929, Werwolf's membership swelled to an impressive 30,000 to 40,000 individuals. However, as Adolf Hitler and the Nazi party gained prominence, Werwolf's numbers dwindled to around 10,000, and eventually, the organization was fully integrated into the NSDAP.

Werwolf/Possedism propaganda

Various rare photos of Werwolf

After expelling the National Bolsheviks, Karl Radek, the leader of the German Communist Party, adopted many of their positions in 1923 to appeal to nationalist workers and middle-class individuals, even attempting to attract members of the NSDAP. Radek held discussions with German nationalist general Eugen Freiher von Reibnitz and even shared a stage with German conservative thinker Arthur Moller van Den Bruck. In the same year, Moller published a book called Third Empire, which advocated for a German socialism based on figures like Otto von Bismarck and Friedrich List, and criticized English liberalism while praising Russian Bolshevism as an authentic form of socialism for Russia. Moller's book had a significant influence on nationalist and pro-Soviet right-wing figures, including Otto Strasser and Karl Otto Paetel.

Radek allowed Moller to publish articles in the communist journal, along with the anti-Semitic völkisch writer Ernst Reventow. The question arises as to why communists and nationalists started collaborating at this time instead of earlier. The answer lies in a declining capitalist economy, the French-Belgian occupation of the Ruhr, and a shared growing hatred of capitalism, liberalism, and parliamentarism. There was also a growing sympathy for socialist and nationalist causes on both sides, which facilitated this collaboration. Radek delivered nationalistic speeches and glorified Leo Schageter, a member of the Freikorps and NSDAP who was executed by the French military for sabotage in the Ruhr. Ernst Reventow and Arthur Moller van Den Bruck endorsed Russia as a "natural ally" to the proletarian nation of Germany. Nationalists and communists even protested together against the occupation of the Ruhr.

During this time, many German political parties and factions had nationalist or strong anti-capitalist sections within their organizations. These groups often competed with each other to prove who was the true "nationalist" or "socialist." However, there were still clear differences between these groups. Those with conservative or nationalist backgrounds, like Arthur Moller Van Den Bruck and the NSDAP, favored class collaboration over class struggle, unlike the KPD. It is worth noting that many of these socialist, nationalist, or conservative socialist individuals were primarily influenced by Marxism, although they were also influenced by other writers such as Friedrich List or Rudolf Jung (in the case of the NSDAP). However, some NSDAP members, like Adolf Hitler, and Conservative Revolutionaries, like Oswald Spengler, preached a nationalistic socialism but were anti-Soviet. There were often street fights and verbal attacks exchanged between these factions, especially by Adolf Hitler, who accused the KPD of being controlled by Jews. Additionally, the KPD did not share the racial or anti-Semitic views of the NSDAP or völkisch factions, like Ernst Reventow.

Within the conservative revolution and other nationalist circles, there were factions that sought an alliance with the Soviets and believed in class struggle as a means of national liberation. However, they did not believe in progress or egalitarianism and were highly critical of both the NSDAP and KDP. National Revolutionaries like Ernst Niekisch, Karl Otto Paetel, Ernst Jünger, and Ernst von Salomon played significant roles in influencing radical nationalist and socialist scenes through their participation in journals, political parties, and movements.

Ernst Niekisch, in particular, was influential in promoting pro-Soviet positions. He initially belonged to the SPD and played a role in the formation of the short-lived Bavarian Soviet Republic in 1919, which led to his imprisonment. In the 1920s, Niekisch expressed more nationalistic views within the SPD, resulting in his expulsion in 1926. He then founded the National Bolshevik magazine, Widerstand, which became highly popular. Renowned German novelist Ernst Jünger and his brother Friedrich even contributed to the magazine. Niekisch also joined the Old Social Democrat party and steered it towards a more nationalistic direction. The party achieved electoral success, winning four seats in the Saxony parliament and receiving over 65,000 votes at its peak.

Widerstand magazine distinguished itself from major parties like the NSDAP and KDP. It criticized the NSDAP's anti-Soviet policy as self-destructive and argued that Adolf Hitler's National Socialism was not true socialism. The magazine also strongly opposed imperialism and sought alliances with colonized peoples worldwide. It displayed open hostility towards Christianity, considering it a "foreign" Latin religion and accusing Hitler of being under the control of the Catholic Church. The magazine exhibited sympathies towards German Paganism. While these positions may seem similar to those of the KDP, there were distinct differences. Niekisch and the magazine rejected the idea of historical progress, a fundamental aspect of Marxism, and they also did not believe in the attainment of an egalitarian and classless society. They viewed these concepts as grand myths that could motivate the masses but were unattainable.

Niekisch also criticized Marx for agreeing with the capitalist process of eroding nations, ethnic identities, and traditions, which he vehemently opposed.

“Marxism is more than a red flag, in the proper and figurative sense, which then permits it to carry the masses, uneducated and undemanding, and put them in states of blind excitation.”

“Thus, they waited with impatience for this paradise that would become their hell. However, this self destructive folly was provoked with the aid of the thought of the German philosopher, Hegel. The dialectical dynamic was the magic formula of the great spirit. Under its supernatural light, it accomplishes the transubstantiation of the thankless way of technical progress along the road of grace towards salvation. It must push to the extreme mechanization, rationalization, monopolism, and proletarianization. That is the sole means of arriving at the “expropriation of the expropriators.” Within the capitalist society, approaching its apogee, the fruit of a beautiful socialism ripens. The persuasive force of the dialectical dynamic was due to the fact that the idea seems to be more than an amusing thought game and they must recognize it as the faithful image of a future reality. The walls and the gables of the slaughterhouse shine in the distance, in the mists colored with blood, such an aurora. Their silhouette resembles a fairy tale castle. Irresistibly, they wait for their victims – who hasten to arrive at the castle.”

“Marxism creates illusions and provokes enthusiasm in place of warnings.“

“By the force of things, humanity lets itself be carried by this current. Already the wind carries the spray of distant whirlpools. The shade of dangerous reefs draws itself on the horizon. Marxism greets them as isles of happiness.“

“Marxism attracts the view in the direction of the onward march, puts him in a fury. Marxist doctrine is naive. It glorifies the progress that will destroy its followers.”

— Ernst Niekisch, Technology: The Devourer of Men

Niekisch held the belief that through the class struggle, the nation could be revitalized by toppling the outdated and feeble ruling class. However, he deemed the KDP ill-equipped to fulfill this crucial mission. In 1929, the global economic depression hit, causing widespread unemployment and reviving interest in radical politics. This was a significant year for national revolutionaries and Germany as a whole. It was during this time that Niekisch visited the Soviet Union in 1930. Ernst Jünger, along with political theorist Carl Schmitt, also frequented the Russian Embassy. Niekisch's trip to the Soviet Union coincided with the rise of radical politics due to the economic crisis, providing opportunities for various ideological groups to gain power.

This brings us to Karl Otto Paetel, the final German National Bolshevik thinker. Unlike many others mentioned, Paetel was not actively involved in political or revolutionary activities for years. He was a college student at Friedrich Wilhelm University in 1928. However, Paetel had always harbored nationalist sympathies and found himself protesting with other students and youths outside the French Embassy. He was arrested alongside many others and found himself torn between the Communist youth and the Nazi students. It was during this time that Paetel's ideas as a National Bolshevik began to take shape. Paetel was expelled from the university and started writing for various publications. He also joined the Deutsche Freischar, a nationalistic youth movement. Under the influence of Ernst Niekisch, Ernst Jünger, and other national revolutionaries, Paetel's writings became more radically socialist, calling for nationalization and land redistribution. This eventually led to his departure from the Deutsche Freischar. Paetel then joined the Young Front Working Circle, a group dedicated to collaboration between right and left radicals.

The Soviet magazine Pepper showing the friendship between the Soviet and German proletariat

In May 1930, the Young Front Working Circle was reorganized into the Group of Social Revolutionary Front (GSRN), with Paetel as its leader. Fritz Wolffhiem also joined the group. The GSRN initially tried to appeal to the Nazis and push them in a more socialist and pro-Soviet direction, even attempting to tap into their anti-Semitism. They achieved some success on a grassroots level among members who were dissatisfied with Hitler's moderate stance on economic issues. However, they ultimately turned to the KDP, which had just released another nationalist and anti-imperialist program. The GSRN sought to rally nationalists to the KDP and participated in protests alongside them, adopting their anti-Fascist position and engaging in clashes with the NSDAP. However, like the NSDAP, the GSRN became disillusioned with the KDP, believing that the party was not genuinely nationalist.

When discussing the subject matter centered on Germany, it is important to acknowledge France as well. In this regard, an interesting organization called Cercle Proudhon emerged in France during the early 1900s. The organization took its name from Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a renowned anarchist philosopher from the 19th century. Cercle Proudhon sought to combine elements of anarchist syndicalism and nationalism, advocating for a decentralized society with a strong national identity. Zeev Sternhell's analysis of the organization provides valuable insights into the ideological and historical aspects of this development. Notably, the influence of Cercle Proudhon extended to the German Conservative Revolution. The German National Bolsheviks, led by Niekisch, embraced the symbol of Cercle Proudhon as a representation of their envisioned synthesis between nationalism and socialism.

Constantin von Hoffmeister, sheds light on the significance behind their use of this symbol.

“Amidst the swirling mists of history and the murmurings of destiny, there emerges an icon — noble and arcane. An eagle, grand and untamed, stretches its mighty wings across the breadth of the Eurasian expanse. In its talons, it holds fast to a hammer and sword — emblems of the worker’s labor and the warrior’s valor. A banner of profound symbology unfurls in the imagination, wrought in the loom of National Bolshevism.”

— Constantin von Hoffmeister, National Bolshevism: The Eurasian Dream

The Cercle Proudhon and National Bolshevik eagle

Ernst Niekisch's Widerstand journal

A propaganda poster used to advertise a revised, National Bolshevik programme for the NSDAP, written by Karl Otto Paetel and his supporters in late 1929

In the late 1920s and early 1930s, two significant movements emerged alongside the National Revolutionaries: the Black Front and the Agrarian Movement. Led by Otto Strasser, the Black Front split from the NSDAP in 1930 due to disagreements with Hitler over his response to recent labor strikes, his authoritarian tendencies, and what they viewed as his "fascist" approach. The well-documented tension between Strasser and Hitler stemmed from their conflicting views on the NSDAP's ideology. While the Black Front aligned itself with National Socialism, it adopted a more moderate stance, openly rejecting anti-Semitism and collaborating with Jewish individuals like Kurt Hiller and Helmut Hirsch.

Strasser advocated for a strategic alliance with the communists to overthrow the Weimar Republic and abolish the Treaty of Versailles. He considered the British Empire a greater threat to Germany than the Soviet Union and supported India's fight for independence from British colonial rule. Influenced by prominent Conservative Revolutionaries such as Oswald Spengler, Werner Sombart, and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Strasser incorporated their symbolism and slogans into his own ideology. In fact, he criticized fascism for being no different from Soviet communism.

“Fascists and communists are the first to exalt the state, the first to repress economic and personal independence, the first to exalt the excesses of power, the success of organization, decree, planning, and - last but not least - the police.”

— Otto Strasser, Germany Tomorrow

The Black Front quickly captured the attention of Karl Otto Paetel and fellow National Revolutionaries. Nonetheless, Paetel's interest waned as he took issue with Strasser's aversion to Marxism, materialism, and internationalism. Strasser's Christian faith shaped his political views, which leaned towards agrarianism and economic Guild Socialism. In contrast, Paetel, a Pagan, championed industrial growth, state centralization, materialist and Marxist economics, and a form of "patriotic" internationalism. Despite their ideological conflicts, the Black Front was instrumental during the 1930s in challenging the NSDAP's dominance. They instigated an SA mutiny, engaged in violent confrontations with Nazi supporters, and forged partnerships with various anti-Hitler factions.

While there were disagreements and divisions among the National Revolutionaries and the Black Front, they all supported the Rural Movement. The Rural Movement consisted of small farmers who protested against the government's economic policies and the Treaty of Versailles. They refused to pay taxes, engaged in protests, and sometimes even resorted to rioting. The National Revolutionaries and the Black Front saw potential in this movement and rallied behind it. Figures like Ernst von Salomon and his brother Bruno participated in the movement, running a supportive magazine called Landvolk and carrying out bombings against government buildings (though these actions were unpopular within the wider movement). Ernst Niekisch also expressed sympathies for the movement, giving speeches and writing positively about it.

At the time, the Nazis did not enjoy popular support among the farmers, which presented an opportunity for the National Revolutionaries and the wider Conservative Revolution. However, they failed to capitalize on this advantage. Prominent leaders like Claus Hiem and Ernst von Salomon were arrested for their involvement in bombing campaigns, causing the movement to lose mass support and giving the NSDAP more influence over the rural population. Additionally, the Conservative Revolutionaries were divided on whom to support in the 1930 elections. Niekisch backed Claus Hiem, hoping that his victory would secure Hiem's release from prison. Others, like Ernst von Salomon, joined the Communist party, while Otto Strasser and Karl Otto Paetel abstained from electoral politics due to their anti-parliamentarian stance. None of these attempts succeeded, and the Rural Movement continued to decline. However, Niekisch's influence persisted within the movement until 1933. This marked the last opportunity for the German Conservative Revolution to become a popular movement and overthrow the Weimar government, but it ultimately failed.

In a crucial historical juncture in 1935, with tensions simmering between Germany and Italy after the assassination of the Austrian prime minister and Germany's territorial aspirations, an important conversation transpired between Benito Mussolini and Ernst Niekisch. Niekisch, a German National Bolshevik and vocal critic of Hitler, reached out to Mussolini in search of allies to combat the Nazi regime. During their private meeting, Mussolini expressed his own reservations about Hitler and shared his thoughts with Niekisch on Karl Marx:

“Isn't it true that one must go through the school of Marxism to acquire a true understanding of political realities? Those who have not passed through the school of historical materialism will remain mere ideologists."

— Benito Mussolini quoted in Niekisch and Mussolini by Ernst Niekisch

Despite their persistent efforts to resist Hitler and the NSDAP, including the Black Front, National Revolutionaries, and the broader Conservative Revolutionary movement, they ultimately failed to overthrow the Nazis. Despite their attempts to undermine Hitler, he skillfully thwarted their actions and disrupted anti-Nazi gatherings. In a notable incident, the Nazis ambushed Otto Strasser but were unsuccessful in their attempt to eliminate him. Ultimately, Mussolini aligned himself with Nazism, shifting the political landscape in favor of Hitler. In 1933, just before Hitler's election, Karl Otto Paetel published the final significant work of German National Bolshevism: The National Bolshevik Manifesto of 1933, which outlined his views.

“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."

— Karl Otto Paetel, The National Bolshevik Manifesto

Hans Zehrer, another significant yet underrecognized figure within the Conservative Revolutionary movement, played a crucial role during the 1928-1933 period, overshadowing contemporaries like Niekisch and Paetel. A veteran of the Great War and participant in the 1920 Kapp Putsch, Zehrer transitioned into political journalism, notably transforming the national journal Die Tat into Germany's leading political publication by advocating a unique blend of anti-capitalist socialism and nationalism. His vision rejected the conventional political spectrum, aiming instead for a “Third Front” that united all militant forces across the spectrum under a vision of national unity and elitism, while opposing the NSDAP. Zehrer's zenith occurred under Kurt von Schleicher's government, with Die Tat serving as an unofficial ideological platform. His writings, exemplified by a 1932 Die Tat article Right or Left?, argued for transcending the left-right divide to achieve a unified national community, suggesting common goals and ideologies between seemingly disparate political factions, and envisioning a synthesis that could address future challenges by forming a new national unity beyond traditional political divides.

“The way of the future involves bringing together this man of the Right with the man of the Left, and vice versa, in order to create out of both a new Volksgemeinschaft under the mythos of a new nation.”

— Hans Zehrer, Right or Left?

After Hitler seized power, the Conservative Revolutionary movement faced a crackdown, leading to the proscription of groups like the Black Front and the suppression of Paetel's manifesto. In defiance, Paetel and his allies established initial anti-Nazi resistance networks. The 1934 Night of the Long Knives purged internal Nazi Party dissent, killing Conservative Revolution adherents like Edgar Jung, and subsequently, all competing political parties were outlawed. Otto Strasser and Karl Otto Paetel escaped Germany, while those who stayed behind organized underground resistance. Strasser set up a broadcast operation in Czechoslovakia to air anti-Hitler propaganda into Germany and tried to orchestrate an attack on NSDAP's Nuremberg base, which failed. After his radio station was thwarted and the Black Front collapsed in 1937, Strasser emigrated to Canada, his subsequent resistance efforts proving ineffective. Paetel's post-exile life is largely undocumented, except for his relocation to the U.S. Karl Radek of the KPD fled to the USSR post-1923 Hamburg uprising, later perishing under Stalin in 1939.

Otto and Paetel found refuge abroad, unlike many associates who suffered in concentration camps, such as Fritz Wolffhiem, who died in Ravensbrück, and Beppo Romer, who was executed following torture for his role in a plot to kill Hitler. Ernst Niekisch, although surviving the camps, was left blind. Prior to his capture, Niekisch sought an alliance with Mussolini, despite contentious German-Italian relations over Austria, where German-aligned Austrian Nazis clashed with Italy's ally, the Austrian fascist government. Niekisch, despite agreeing with Mussolini on the perils of Hitler's policies towards the Soviet Union, was arrested in 1937, with his publication Widerstand being shut down earlier in 1934. Only German Ambassador Ulrich von Hassel acted on their shared concerns, participating in the failed July 20th Plot against Hitler.

“Hitler was elevated to the cardinal of civil society at the right hour; the economic leaders had been nimble enough and had not saved. He has since been practicing the rebel method to save the legitimate civil cause. This is his social Jesuitism, which is not hidden from anyone who still has his sense of smell. His "National" Socialism is the timely protective coloring of shaken capitalism; capitalism uses it to find entrance within the ranks of its natural enemies to disarm them.”

— Ernst Niekisch, Hitler: Germany’s Evil Fate

Beyond Niekisch and Wolffhiem who were apprehended early, figures like Ernst Jünger and his brother Friedrich managed to avoid arrest despite house raids by the German police. Ernst Jünger was involved in the 1944 July 20th plot to kill Hitler and suggested a peace proposal to preserve German sovereignty. He also helped Jews, like Sophie Ravoux, disguise their identities and alerted the French Resistance of imminent Jewish deportations while stationed in France during the war.

Ernst von Salomon, another figure in the Conservative Revolutionary movement, concealed his Jewish wife from Nazi detection and maintained links with the Red Orchestra resistance network, which leaked German military intelligence to the Soviets. Despite its communist leanings, the Red Orchestra had connections with nationalist and conservative resisters, including Harro Boysen, a former member of Otto Strasser’s Black Front, who was executed by the Nazis in 1942. Marxist economist Arvid Harnack, another Red Orchestra leader who collaborated with Ernst Niekisch and Ernst Jünger in the ARPLAN society, was also executed in 1942.

The July 20th conspiracy, including individuals like Ernst Jünger and Ernst Niekisch, and others such as Ulrich von Hassel, Field Marshal Erwin Rommel, and Klaus von Stauffenberg and his brother Berthold, aimed to assassinate Hitler and initiate a coup. The plot failed, and the coup was the last significant Conservative Revolution and pro-Soviet right effort to dethrone Hitler. Less than a year later, Hitler took his life, and Germany capitulated, but this didn't signal triumph for Germany's pro-Soviet right as the nation split into East and West, with many facing ostracism by the pro-Western government. Some, like Ernst von Salomon and his wife, endured mistreatment in an American prison. Others, like Ernst Niekisch, became disenchanted with their past ideologies in East Germany. Karl Otto Paetel lectured on German National Bolshevism in the U.S., but his political endeavors ceased. Ernst Jünger, despite his contentious past, persisted as a prominent writer, shifting away from pro-Soviet views and being repudiated by East Germany. Salomon penned accounts of his political exploits, but his direct political engagement concluded.

During the Weimar Republic, Ernst Thälmann and the KPD pursued a strategy that often emphasized conflict with the SPD over a unified opposition to the emerging Nazi threat. This approach was influenced by the communist International's assessment, which foresaw an imminent collapse of capitalism. Thälmann and the KPD considered the SPD, due to their centrism, as perpetuators of the capitalist system and thus as significant obstacles to a communist revolution, labeling them as "social fascists." This perspective led to a strategy that sometimes prioritized undermining the SPD over directly confronting the rise of the Nazis.

“Let us not be ashamed to walk under the swastika banner and silence our own propaganda, if it will increase the number of Red flag sympathizers."

— Ernst Thälmann, An Stalin: Briefe aus dem Zuchthaus 1939 bis 1941

The complex relationship between the KPD and the SPD was further complicated by instances of cooperation between the KPD and the Nazis, most notably in 1933. In this period, the KPD and the SA took part in joint actions, such as an organized general strike in Berlin. This collaboration aimed to showcase the potential for a broad working-class movement against the Weimar government, sidelining the Social Democrats, whom the KPD viewed as betraying the working class. However, this strategy underestimated the Nazi agenda, unintentionally lending credibility to Hitler's regime and exacerbating divisions on the political left.

This poster designed by Dr. Goebbels for the collaborative effort between the NSDAP and the KPD

The National Socialist Factory Cell Organization (NSBO), established in 1928 by worker groups primarily in Berlin's large factories, represented an intriguing manifestation of National Bolshevism within the Nazi party. Its creation aimed to provide a Nazi counterpart to existing unions, thereby extending Nazi influence among the working class. By January 1931, it had been officially designated as the German Reich Factory Cell Organization of the Nazi party. Despite this, the NSBO only achieved notable success in certain areas, supporting workers' strikes like the Berlin Transport Strike of 1932 in specific instances.

A faction within the NSBO embraced ideas similar to National Bolshevism, arguing that a "social revolution" was necessary to follow the anticipated "national revolution." This would be aimed at overthrowing the dominant elites. This group viewed the Soviet Union favorably within the context of German geopolitics and expressed a deep skepticism towards the "plutocratic West." This perspective found particular traction in places such as Nordhorn, a textile industry hub in Bentheim County. Here, in 1933, the NSBO managed to outperform the communists in worker council elections and even took up arms to challenge wage reductions at some factories. However, the landscape shifted drastically in May 1933 when the Nazi regime banned all non-Nazi trade unions, leading to the absorption of the NSBO into the German Labor Front. This marked the end of the NSBO as an independent entity, as it was integrated into Germany's sole permitted labor organization under the Nazi regime.

Adolf Hitler's ideology exhibited intersections with National Bolshevik concepts, significantly shaped by Karl Haushofer's influence during their joint incarceration in Landsberg in 1923. Haushofer's "Geopolitik" promoted a vision of a powerful Eurasian "great space" under German hegemony, echoing an interpretation of Eurasianism. Building upon Friedrich Ratzel's groundwork, Haushofer's geopolitical theories were rooted in a social Darwinist view of the state as an organic entity with an inherent drive for expansion. This expansionist drive was seen as a natural state impulse, analogous to biological organisms, suggesting that it was normal for larger states to assimilate smaller ones. Ratzel and Haushofer critically assessed and ultimately rejected 18th-century liberal principles, which posited sovereign nation-states with intrinsic rights, such as self-determination, even against stronger states. They regarded these liberal notions as misleading, serving as a facade for dominant states to exercise their power while feigning adherence to a moral code that they themselves did not observe. In contrast, Ratzel and Haushofer proposed a more forthright, amoral, and pragmatic approach to geopolitics.

In their development of the "Lebensraum" (Living Space) concept within geopolitical theory, Ratzel and Haushofer posited the state as an organically-driven entity seeking territorial expansion. These concepts were later co-opted and actualized by Hitler and the NSDAP. From an anti-liberal German stance, Haushofer also expanded on Halford Mackinder's Heartland Theory, asserting the strategic necessity for Germany and Russia to jointly secure the Heartland and Rimland of Eurasia against Anglo-American naval supremacy. Whether through annexation or alliance, the ultimate aim was to consolidate Eurasia into a significant counterforce against Anglo-American maritime power. These ideas mirrored those of National Bolsheviks, who likewise underscored the imperative of Eurasian unity, albeit favoring a Moscow-centric version of Eurasianism rather than Berlin-centric.

Carl Schmitt, a prominent legal theorist in the Third Reich, deepened the ideological connections within this context. Schmitt's legal theories justified and legitimized the expansion of states into "large spaces," sometimes at the detriment of smaller sovereignties. He challenged the concept of a globally uniform "rules-based order" as espoused by liberal theorists of the time. Schmitt argued that powerful nations create and enforce their own set of rules within their realms of influence, effectively controlling the political entities therein. These rules, he contended, are not universal truths but constructs of power relations, holding sway only while the dominant nation can uphold its order through its might. Schmitt's ideas resonate with Russian philosopher Alexander Dugin's Theory of a Multipolar World, which also rejects a single hegemonic power structure. Echoing Haushofer, Schmitt supported German territorial expansion eastward, emphasizing the strategic importance of consolidating the Rimland to resist Anglo-American naval dominance and protect the Eurasian Heartland.

“The concept of humanity is an especially useful ideological instrument of imperialist expansion, and in its ethical-humanitarian form it is a specific vehicle of economic imperialism. Here one is reminded of a somewhat modified expression of Proudhon’s: whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat. To confiscate the word humanity, to invoke and monopolize such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.”

— Carl Schmitt, The Concept of The Political

Dr. Joseph Goebbels, the Propaganda Minister under Hitler, also shared these expansionist views, but he envisaged Germany achieving its geopolitical aspirations through diplomatic means and alliances, rather than solely through aggression. Goebbels found some agreement with the National Bolsheviks within Germany, appreciating their mutual aversion to Anglo-American capitalism and what they viewed as Jewish-controlled finance. As Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union matured, Haushofer too recognized its alignment with German interests, viewing it as a bulwark against the same international forces Germany opposed and a liberator from the constraints of global financial systems.

Adolf Hitler, although influenced by the likes of Haushofer and Schmitt, also crafted his own nuanced view of Joseph Stalin and the Soviet Union. Hitler came to respect Stalin's governance, perceiving the Soviet Union as having evolved substantially since its early Bolshevik days. He lamented the misunderstandings surrounding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact with Stalin, wishing for a genuine rapport with the Soviet leader. This sentiment was not unique to Hitler; it was shared by German Foreign Minister Joachim von Ribbentrop and Italian leader Benito Mussolini. Even amidst the distrust of the time, the Third Reich's leadership held out hope that Stalin's Soviet Union might become a reliable ally. This aspiration was occasionally apparent and provoked concern among the British and French governments. In 1940, the Soviet Union supplied crucial oil to Nazi Germany, which led to British and French plans to bomb Soviet oil infrastructure to disrupt the support to Germany.

Adolf Hitler's series of letters to Joseph Stalin, from late 1940 through to the middle of 1941, weave a complex tale of strategic reassurances and diplomatic maneuverings ahead of Operation Barbarossa. Beginning with a New Year's message on December 31, 1940, Hitler aimed to mitigate Soviet concerns about German forces moving to Poland, justifying this as mere reorganization away from the prying eyes of British intelligence. He assured Stalin of the temporary nature of these movements, promising a retraction after defeating England, and argued that such actions bore no intention of aggression towards the USSR. Hitler also dismissed any speculation about a potential conflict with the Soviet Union as baseless, stressing the importance of keeping their communications confidential. Marshal Georgy Zhukov, recounting a briefing by Stalin in January 1941, revealed that Hitler's communication was actually in response to a previous, unrevealed inquiry by Stalin himself regarding the rationale behind the German military's positioning in Poland. This exchange is a pivotal piece of a larger narrative in which Hitler sought to convince Stalin of Germany's peaceful intentions towards the USSR amidst the realignment of its forces.

In yet another pivotal letter on May 14, 1941, Hitler doubled down on his assertion that a lasting peace in Europe was contingent upon England's defeat. Despite acknowledging disagreement within his own ranks about this strategic direction, he sought to reassure Stalin that the German military buildup near the Soviet frontier was not a precursor to conflict. Hitler voiced apprehension about possible unintended aggressive actions by German military personnel, asking for Stalin's patience should such situations arise. He wrapped up by thanking Stalin for his concurrence on a matter not specified and proposed a future rendezvous to deliberate the end of the conflict with England and the formation of a new socialist global order.

“For a final solution of what to do with this bankrupt English legacy, and also for the consolidation of the union of socialist countries and the establishment of new world order, I would like very much to meet personally with you. I have spoken about this with Messrs. Molotov and Dekanozov.”

— Adolf Hitler quoted in What Stalin Knew: The Enigma of Barbarossa by David E. Murphy

Amidst Hitler's assurances, Joseph Stalin navigated the waters of Soviet-German diplomacy with increased prudence. While harboring a complex mixture of respect and caution towards Hitler, Stalin was careful to avoid any actions that might lead to a military confrontation. He considered the possibility that Hitler's intentions towards the USSR might be genuine as an opportunity, yet he remained alert to the risk of a rapidly worsening situation. In 1940, a significant economic agreement was struck between the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany, whereby the USSR supplied raw materials to Germany in exchange for military equipment. This deal helped Germany bypass the economic sanctions imposed by Britain. Discussions about possibly integrating the Soviet Union into the Axis alliance were held but never materialized.

Research by Russian historian Andrei Fursov sheds light on the complexity of Hitler's distrust toward his military leadership, specifically his concern that they might instigate a conflict with the USSR to serve British interests. This apprehension was not without merit. However, a widespread anti-Soviet stance and escalating distrust of Stalin played a crucial role in shaping Hitler's strategic choices. He found himself increasingly leaning on the guidance of the German intelligence services, which pushed for a preemptive assault on the Soviet Union, even as Hitler harbored personal doubts about such a course of action.

Fursov's investigations reveal the role of Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, a key figure in the German intelligence apparatus, who, unbeknownst to many, had been clandestinely collaborating with British Intelligence since 1939. Canaris engaged in manipulation through the alteration of orders, the fabrication of directives, and the suppression of genuine ones. His consistent communication with British Intelligence allowed him to influence the narrative within intelligence reports negatively portraying the Soviet Union, thereby swaying Hitler towards initiating Operation Barbarossa. The full extent of Canaris's betrayals would only come to light in 1944, unveiling the depth of his involvement in shaping the course of events leading up to the conflict.

Lecture by Andrei Fursov on how Adolf Hitler allegedly got tricked into attacking the USSR

The conditions stipulated by the Soviet Union for joining the Axis were deemed excessively stringent by observers. The Soviets aimed to expand their control over several territories, notably Finland and Romania, among others. This ambition extended beyond mere territorial acquisition; it was designed to significantly increase Germany's dependency on the Soviet Union for essential raw materials and resources. Such a move revealed the Soviet leadership's view of the relationship with the Third Reich; they did not perceive Nazi Germany as an ally of equal stature in their mutual confrontation with the Anglo-American powers. Instead, the Soviet Union intended to use the alliance as a means to eventually dominate Germany, effectively reducing it to a vassal state within the Soviet sphere. Consequently, this strategy suggested that Germany would not stand as an equal partner in shaping the envisioned new world order alongside the Axis powers but would rather become a vehicle for expanding Soviet geopolitical and ideological reach.

"Let us look now at the second possibility – namely, that Germany becomes the victor. Some propose that this turn of events would present us with a serious danger. There is some truth in this notion. But it would be erroneous to believe that such a danger is as near and as great as they assume. If Germany achieves victory in the war, it will emerge from it in such a depleted state that to start a conflict with the USSR will take at least 10 years.

Germany’s main task would be then to keep watch on the defeated England and France to prevent their restoration. On the other hand, a victorious Germany would have at its disposal a large territory. Over the course of many years, Germany would be preoccupied with the exploitation of these territories and establishing in them the German order. Obviously, Germany would be too preoccupied to move against us.

There is still another factor that enhances our security. In the defeated France, the French Communist Party would be very strong. A Communist revolution would follow inevitably. We would exploit this in order to come to the aid of France and to win it over as an ally. Later these peoples who fell under the “protection” of a victorious Germany likewise would become our allies.  We would have a large arena in which to develop the world revolution.

Comrades! It is in the interests of the USSR, the Land of the Toilers, that war breaks out between the Reich and the capitalist Anglo-French bloc. Everything must be done so that the war lasts as long as possible in order that both sides become exhausted. Namely for this reason we must agree to the pact proposed by Germany and use it so that once this war is declared, it will last for a maximum amount of time. We must step up our propaganda within the combatant countries so that they are prepared for that time when the war ends."

— Joseph Stalin, speech to the Members of the Politbureau, August 19, 1939

This element was pivotal in influencing Hitler's determination to launch an offensive against the Soviet Union. Despite objections from his Foreign Minister Ribbentrop, who not only voiced his dissent but also forewarned of Germany's potential defeat to a Soviet envoy, Hitler's conviction in the strategic necessity of the invasion remained unshaken. In David Irving's Hitler's War, it's documented that Hitler dismissed Ribbentrop's suggestion to eliminate Stalin during the conflict, hinting at a certain degree of personal respect for Stalin. Furthermore, the Soviet Union's persistent refusal to acknowledge the rationale behind Japanese aggression against British and American targets showcased its reluctance to compromise its strategic interests, even in diplomatic engagements with Japan. This insistence on prioritizing its own objectives was a stance that ultimately played a part in China's decision to sever diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union amidst the Sino-Soviet split in 1977.

Following the assassination attempt on July 20, 1944, Adolf Hitler identified Wilhelm Canaris as a participant in the plot. Hitler lambasted this group as a clique of ambitious, morally bankrupt, and intellectually deficient officers who sought to assassinate him and dismantle the German military leadership. The bombing orchestrated by Colonel Stauffenberg resulted in severe injuries to Hitler's associates and the death of one. In response, Hitler was adamant about eradicating what he perceived as a malignant conspiracy against him.

The German traitors

Although Wilhelm Canaris was not an active participant in the July 20, 1944, assassination attempt, his actions from 1939 to 1944 significantly undermined Germany's military campaign against Britain and its burgeoning diplomatic ties with the Soviet Union. Despite these internal setbacks, there was a period where the Third Reich and the Soviet Union appeared to be on the verge of fostering a partnership based on their mutual opposition to Western influences. However, the manipulative strategies that ultimately benefited the Anglo-American Atlanticist powers led to the rapid dissolution of any hopes for a united Eurasian front against the Atlanticist powers of the West. The launch of Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941, decisively shattered the possibility of any alliance between Germany and Russia. Yet, the echoes of these aspirations for collaboration would reemerge during the Cold War, as reflected in the viewpoints of figures like Otto Ernst Remer and Leon Degrelle.

Otto Ernst Remer on the necessity of an alliance between Germany and Russia against Britain and America

"In the West, the civilization of material gain is itself disgusting to young people, who cannot bring themselves to terms with the decline in the level of the digestive tract offered to them by the consumer society. Crime or drugs are the price of this situation. At a time when we are witnessing the awakening of Islam, while the American way of life leaves peoples dissatisfied, the youth of Europe are not offered any hope left to themselves and their spiritual suffering. Where is the solution? Well, I will surprise you at the risk of unleashing the wrath of new enemies on me: I expect a lot from the Russian people. He is still a healthy force, and he will not forever tolerate his regime of spoiled bureaucrats whose failure is complete in all areas."

— Leon Degrelle, Last Volksfuhrer interview by Elements magazine

In Rainer Zitelmann's book, Hitler's National Socialism, Zitelmann elucidates the contentious nature of Hitler's economic theories pertaining to the interplay between market forces and planned economies. Before ascending to power in 1933, Hitler strategically obscured his authentic economic ideology, underscoring the need for discretion about his economic strategies to enhance his prospects for gaining political influence. He thus oscillated between defending private property in some addresses and criticizing capitalism in others, always tailoring his rhetoric to resonate with his diverse audiences. Hitler's ultimate goal was to integrate the forces of competition and selection within a state-directed economy. He championed the idea that the needs of the collective should supersede individual ambitions, challenging the traditional priority given to personal interests.

After securing power, Hitler closely monitored Stalin's method of rule, leading to a transformation of his initial skepticism into a measure of admiration for the Soviet economic structure. He spoke favorably of the Soviet method of economic governance and showed a particular appreciation for Stalin's centralized planning. Evidence of this shift can be found in the records of Wilhelm Scheidt, which disclose Hitler's acknowledgment of a deep-seated ideological kinship between his own beliefs and those of Bolshevism, albeit considering his system to be a more refined and direct iteration. Consequently, it is reasonable to infer that such sentiments were shared among high-ranking Nazis, as evidenced by the likes of Joseph Goebbels, who is known to have remarked:

“Lenin was the greatest man, second only to Hitler... the difference between Communism and the Hitler faith is very slight..."

— Joseph Goebbels quoted in Hitlerite Riot In Berlin: Beer Glasses Fly When Speaker Compares Hitler and Lenin by The New York Times

“It would be better for us to go down with Bolshevism than live in eternal slavery under capitalism."

— Joseph Goebbels quoted in The Devil's Disciples: Hitler's Inner Circle by Anthony Read

Historian Dr. John Toland observed that Hitler's vision of an orchestrated economy bore striking resemblances to authentic socialism. Dr. George Watson concurred, suggesting that Hitler and his inner circle considered themselves socialists — a sentiment shared by some democratic socialists. Götz Aly, another historian, noted the past communist ties of several Nazi officials. Economic historian Peter Temin remarked on the Nazi state's strategy of consolidating industries into larger entities under greater state supervision. Historian Richard Overy documented the significant expansion of state-owned enterprises during the Nazi era. Henry Ashby Turner highlighted that capitalists and their organizations often financially supported the Nazis' adversaries or competitors. Economist Dr. Ludwig von Mises analyzed how the Nazi government regulated various economic facets, such as production, pricing, wages, and labor distribution, curbing profits and steering reinvestment. Historian Ian Kershaw pointed out that it was the state, not market forces, that shaped economic development in Nazi Germany. Jackson Spielvogel detailed the extensive economic controls imposed by the Nazi regime, including restrictions on foreign trade, prices, wages, and labor.

In synthesizing these views, historian Alan Milward argued that the economic direction of fascist states, including the Nazi regime, could be more precisely characterized as anti-capitalist rather than capitalist. Collectively, this scholarly interpretation suggests that Hitler and his regime embraced socialist and anti-capitalist economic principles, enacting measures that heightened state influence and curtailed the role of free enterprise. Hitler believed in the decline of capitalism and saw the future dominated by fascism and possibly Bolshevism. Even as the war drew to a close, Hitler lamented his inability to successfully eliminate the capitalist elements he believed had infiltrated his regime.

“We have liquidated the left-wing class fighters, but unfortunately we forgot in the meantime to also launch the decisive blow against the capitalist right. That is our great sin of omission."

— Adolf Hitler quoted in The Nazi War Against Capitalism by Nevin Gussack

During the era of the French Third Republic, a minor political group known as the French National-Collectivist party (PFNC), formerly the French National Communist party, emerged and later gained some prominence during France's occupation. Led by sports journalist Pierre Clémenti, the party initially adopted communist leanings but later incorporated facets of fascism, giving rise to "National Communism." The PFNC's economic views, while national communist in orientation, bore resemblance to those of council communism. They proposed a decentralized economy controlled by the working class, stressing worker sovereignty and communal ownership of production means. Their economic agenda aimed to create a society with workers at the helm of governance, fostering a more just allocation of resources.

The ideology of the PFNC extended beyond its economic stance to encompass facets similar to fascism, marked by racism and anti-Semitism. The party also championed pan-European nationalism and the concept of rattachism, promoting the idea of unifying French-speaking regions like Wallonia with France. Throughout the German occupation of France, the PFNC exhibited varying levels of cooperation with the Nazi occupiers. While the degree of collaboration differed among party members, there were clear examples of their willingness to work with the Nazi authorities. Clémenti himself had interactions with German representatives and showed an openness to working with the occupation forces. Additionally, some PFNC members were active in the Milice, a paramilitary group that assisted the Nazis in oppressive actions against the French resistance and Jewish communities. The collaboration between the PFNC and the Nazis involved not just political alignment but also sharing intelligence, collaborating on propaganda campaigns, and even recruiting French individuals to join the German military efforts on the Eastern Front.

The Soviet Union regarded the PFNC with suspicion and disfavor. During Stalin's leadership, the Soviet hierarchy insisted on a rigid form of international communism and retained tight control over the communist parties across different nations. The PFNC's blend of communism with fascist elements strayed from the Soviet model of communism and was seen as ideologically impure, diverging from Marxist-Leninist tenets. Moreover, the PFNC's collaboration with Nazi Germany was viewed as a stark violation of the commitment to combat fascism, and thus the Soviet Union rejected the PFNC as a legitimate communist entity. The PFNC, for its part, accused the Soviets of being pseudo-communists manipulated by Jewish Zionism.

In exploring the roots of Holocaust denial, a connection to France emerges, particularly among French Communists who actively resisted Nazi Germany during World War II. Despite their aversion to Soviet ideology, many of these individuals believed that the Holocaust narrative was a propaganda tool used by the Allies to manipulate Germany, conceal their own wartime actions, and financially strain the country.

One prominent figure in this movement was Paul Rassinier, an anti-Nazi Marxist associated with "La Vieille Taupe," a French Communist publishing house known for promoting Holocaust denial. Rassinier, a former prisoner of war captured by the Germans and sent to a concentration camp for his role as a partisan, emerged from his harrowing experience as a vocal Holocaust denier.

During the early 1960s, Rassinier corresponded with American revisionist historian Harry Elmer Barnes, who facilitated the translation of Rassinier's works. Barnes posthumously published a favorable review of Rassinier's book The Drama of The European Jews in the American Mercury under the title Zionist Fraud. In 1977, these translated works were collectively published by Noontide Press as Debunking The Genocide Myth, introducing Rassinier's writings to a wider English-speaking audience. In The Lie of Ulysses, Rassinier provides eyewitness testimony to assert that the Holocaust was a lie, which is why he is remembered as the father of Holocaust denial.

Additionally, it's vital to recognize National Bolshevism's influence within the Spanish Falange before General Franco's ascendancy. Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, a fervent supporter of this ideology, played a key role in its dissemination among the Falangists. His perspective is clearly reflected in this statement, as illustrated by the subsequent quote:

“Long live the new world of the 20th century! Long live Fascist Italy! Long live Soviet Russia! Long live Hitler's Germany! Long live Spain, we'll do it. Down with the bourgeois and parliamentary democracies!"

— Ramiro Ledesma Ramos quoted in Fascism In Spain 1923-1977 by Stanley G. Payne

The White Russian National Bolsheviks and Left-Eurasianism

In the early 20th century, the Russian Empire faced significant challenges, including economic poverty, political turmoil, and a decline in its global standing compared to nations such as Britain, Japan, Germany, and France. When World War I erupted in 1914, Russia promptly joined the conflict against the Central Powers. However, as the war prolonged, the Russian population experienced deteriorating conditions, leading to a liberal revolution in early March 1917. Later that year, in November, Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik party led a communist revolution. The Bolsheviks, as revolutionaries, aimed to catalyze a global proletarian uprising with the intent of dismantling established institutions such as nation-states, monarchies, and religious organizations. Their rigorous measures against the Tsarist regime, nobility, clergy, and others considered to be in opposition to their revolutionary goals sparked resistance among conservative and nationalist circles.

Yet, as the conflict unfolded into the 1920s and a Bolshevik triumph seemed more probable, certain elements within the White Army and the community of White émigrés began reconsidering their stance toward the Bolsheviks. They grew increasingly open to the idea that the Bolsheviks might pivot from their global revolutionary ideology and anti-religious stance to adopt a form of socialism more aligned with Russian nationalism, which could potentially restore Russia’s stature. Among these were the Smenovekhovtsy (Russian National Bolsheviks), under the leadership of the ex-Slavophile and White Army affiliate Nikolay Ustryalov, and the Eurasianists, a movement initiated by the Lithuanian nobleman Nikolai Trubetzkoy.

"The Civil War is lost definitely. For a long time Russia has been traveling on its own path, not our path... Either recognize this Russia, hated by you all, or stay without Russia, because a 'third Russia' by your recipes does not and will not exist… The Soviet regime saved Russia - the Soviet regime is justified, regardless of how weighty the arguments against it are... The mere fact of its enduring existence proves its popular character, and the historical belonging of its dictatorship and harshness."

— The Smenovekhovtsy magazine Smena Vekh, July 1921

Formed in 1921 and operating predominantly from outside Russia, the Smenovekhovtsy set up in China, while the Left Eurasians spread across Europe. Despite their physical separation, both groups reached similar assessments of the evolving Soviet Union and shared an ambition to reshape and integrate into the Soviet regime. They noticed the USSR was taking on more distinctly Russian or Eurasian traits and was veering towards nationalism, partly due to its international isolation. Both factions welcomed Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP) and later, Stalin's “Socialism in One Country” doctrine, interpreting these policies as a departure from orthodox Marxism.

The Smenovekhovtsy and the Left Eurasians both placed a strong emphasis on geopolitics and foreign affairs in their ideologies. The Eurasianists, in particular, founded their political beliefs on geopolitical concepts, influenced by Nazi theorists like Karl Haushofer and Carl Schmitt, and other German Conservative Revolution intellectuals such as Ernst Niekisch and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck. They championed the idea that a nation's economic and cultural progress should align with its geographical confines and advocated for Eurasian unity against the liberal West. Both groups endorsed the idea of Soviet expansionism as a renewed form of Russian imperial ambition. Ustryalov criticized Western imperialism as racially motivated and destructive, while the Eurasianists proposed a unique racial view of Russia, recognizing Slavs, Mongols, and Turks as its principal races, and were strongly opposed to Western characterizations of Russian society as regressive.

To quote Alexander Dugin:

"The ethnic question was resolved by the Eurasianists in a very interesting manner. They have cast doubt on the previously accepted truths put forth by the Slavophiles regarding the negative impact of the Tartar invasion and the Mongol domination over Russia. The Eurasianists acknowledged the tellurocratic mission of the geopolitical expansion carried out by the Turkish and Mongolian peoples. Genghis Khan, in their eyes, was "the first of the Eurasianists," and the Turks were viewed as an ethnic group, or rather, a young and dynamic Eurasian race, full of creative and imperial potential. However, it was in conjunction with the Slavic genius (thus being Indo-European and Aryan) that the Turkish race succeeded in establishing the Eurasian equilibrium. The Eurasianists saw the Russians as a distinct Slavo-Turkish race endowed with two primary qualities: the expansive energy over vast territories inherent in the Turks ("horizontal") and the metaphysical and "vertical" energy of concentration specific to the Slavs. This racial synthesis, according to the Eurasianists, held the key to Russia's cultural history. They regarded the European race as the old race, feeble and possessing the geopolitical consciousness of the populations residing in the "rimlands," thus lacking the capacity for the extraordinary efforts required to organize the Empire, the grand autonomous space."

— Alexander Dugin, The Russian Conservative Revolution

Moreover this was also understood by Russian Fascists:

“The Russian nation is the spiritual unity of all Russian people on the basis of consciousness of a common historical destiny, a common national culture, traditions, etc. Thus, the Russian nation includes not only Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians, but also the other peoples of Russia: Georgians, Armenians, Tatars, etc.”

— Konstantin Rodzaevsky, ABC of Fascism

The National Bolsheviks and Left-Eurasianists held a critical view of the remaining White Army factions that continued to oppose the Soviet Union. They saw these groups as mere pawns influenced by foreign agendas and vehemently rejected their assertions that the Soviet government was controlled by Jews or that Jews were responsible for the October Revolution. Both groups had religious inclinations, with the Eurasianists even having contributions from an Orthodox Priest named Georges Florovsky. Despite their support for the new Soviet government, particularly from the National Bolsheviks, their leader Ustryalov faced skepticism and opposition from Vladimir Lenin, who viewed him and his group as reactionary opportunists. Nonetheless, Ustryalov perceived a process of "normalization" unfolding in the Soviet Union and argued that the USSR was increasingly resembling a radish - red on the outside but white on the inside.

When Joseph Stalin assumed power, he permitted Ustryalov and his followers to return to Russia. Although Stalin advocated for socialism in one country and a more nationally-oriented Soviet Union, evident in the adoption of a national anthem, he deviated from early Leninist Soviet policies such as the abolition of the family. Additionally, he banned abortion, criminalized homosexuality, and gradually eased anti-religious persecution during the 1940s. Furthermore, Stalin embraced Russian historical figures during World War II. Nevertheless, due to Ustryalov's open sympathies for Italian Fascism, Stalin maintained a sense of mistrust towards him.

“Russian Bolshevism and Italian Fascism are kindred phenomena, they are signs of an epoch. They hate each other like brothers. They are both messengers of ‘Caesarism’, which sounds somewhere in the distance in the nebulous ‘music of the future.”

— Nikolay Vasilyevich Ustryalov, Under The Sign of The Revolution

Stalin, despite implementing policies that aligned with some of Ustryalov's ideas, ultimately sent him to a gulag in 1937 where he was executed on September 14th of the same year. Many of Ustryalov's followers also faced execution on charges of espionage. While the Eurasianists operated from outside the Soviet Union, by the 1930s, they became disenchanted due to their negligible impact back in Russia. Their legitimacy took a hit when it was revealed that a prominent member, Pyotr Savitsky, was actually an informant for the Soviet authorities. Under the leadership of Nikolai Trubetzkoy and the theological guidance of Father George Florovsky, the group dedicated much of their focus to religious discourse. Trubetzkoy, a key figure in structural linguistics, faced Nazi hostility when he penned a critical piece on Hitler in 1938, an action that prompted a police search of his residence in Germany and is thought to have led to his subsequent stroke under the strain of Nazi oppression.

Some Eurasianists, including General Biskupsky and others, aligned themselves with the German National Socialist ideology, while a few, like Pyotr Savitsky and George Vernadsky, retained their pro-Soviet stance. The left-wing Eurasianists, with figures such as Suvchinsky and Karsavin, merged Marxism with their Eurasianism, embracing internationalism with an Orthodox Christian twist. They envisioned Russia-Eurasia as the future bastion of a global socialist truth, a concept widely dismissed by most Eurasianist thinkers, especially Trubetzkoy, who was firmly opposed to any form of universalism. This ideological rift led to a schism within the movement in 1927, rendering the Marxist-leaning left Eurasianism largely inconsequential.

The left Eurasianists' views mirrored those of the original Russian National Bolsheviks in their strong opposition to Western and liberal ideologies, perceiving Russia as a unique civilization apart from the rest of Europe. They believed Bolshevism was essential for Russia’s transformation and progress. Both groups also sought to establish an empire, albeit under varying guises.

“Historically, National Bolshevist circles distinguished themselves through a staunch orientation toward imperial, geopolitical understandings of the nation. Ustrialov’s adherents and sympathizers, the Left Eurasianists, to say nothing of the Soviet National Bolsheviks, understood ‘nationalism’ as a super-ethnic phenomenon connected with geopolitical messianism, with ‘local development [месторазвитием],’ with culture, with the state on a continental scale. Likewise, with Ernst Niekisch and his German comrades, we encounter the idea of a continental empire ‘from Vladivostok to Flessingue,’ as well as the idea of the ‘Third Imperial Figure’ (‘Die dritte imperiale Figur’). In both cases, we are dealing with a geopolitical and cultural understanding of the nation, devoid of even the slightest hint of racism, chauvinism, or ‘ethnic purity.’”

— Alexander Dugin, Templars of the Proletariat

Throughout the Soviet period, the Eurasianist movement was perceived as a subversive element by Soviet leadership, threatening the established Marxist-Leninist doctrine and the state’s grip on power. Eurasianists' focus on cultural heritage and their connections to nationalist and monarchist factions conflicted with the Soviet Union's commitment to international solidarity and the dismantling of pre-existing class structures. In response, the Soviet state enacted various suppressive tactics against the Eurasianists, including censorship, incarceration, and disinformation efforts. A number of the movement’s leading figures, such as Roman von Ungern-Sternberg, Nikolai Trubetzkoy, Petr Savitsky, Lev Gumilev, Nikolai Ustryalov, Ivan Ilyin, Dmitry Merezhkovsky, Konstantin Rodzaevsky, and Nikolai Berdyaev, were targets of Stalin’s purges, facing execution or death, while others endured persecution, surveillance, and intimidation. The Soviet regime was vigilant against the Eurasianist ideology, aiming to quash any potential threats to its authority or ideological unity.

Another group known as the Union of Mladorossi, led by Alexander Kazembek, shared similar ideals with the Smenovekhovtsy, advocating for a pro-monarchist and anti-Stalinist stance. Despite their opposition to Stalin, they still received support from the Soviet government and even fought alongside the European Resistance against Nazi Germany. Within the Ukrainian Nationalist movements, figures like Mykhailo Hrushevski and Volodymyr Vynnychenko attempted to reconcile Nationalism with Bolshevism. They were given positions within the Ukrainian Communist party and had their newspapers funded by the Soviet government outside of the USSR. This group was often referred to as the "Ukrainian Smenovekhovtsy" by many.

Kazembek, along with Vonsiatsky and Bermondt-Avalov, attended the 1933 Russian Fascist conference in Berlin. During this conference, Kazembek signed a cooperation pact with the All-Russian Fascist Organization and Pavel Bermondt-Avalov's Russian National Social Movement. The motivation behind this alliance was the Nazi party's anti-communist stance. However, when the Nazi ideology began to show "apparent" anti-Russian sentiment, the Mladorossi denounced Nazism, labeling it as "Satanic-Fascism."

A photo of the Mladorossi in Nazi Germany

The Mladorossi also displayed a Fascist influence evident in their doctrine and the adoption of the Roman salute, popularized by the Italian Fascists and Nazis. Kazembek, the leader of Mladorossi, had some form of contact with Mussolini. The group held a monarchist orientation and recognized Grand Duke Kirill Vladimirovich of Russia as the legitimate heir to the Russian throne, gaining his support. During the 1930s, the Mladorossi increasingly embraced a pro-Soviet stance, proclaiming their intention to become the "second Soviet party." While they still regarded Stalin as their enemy, the Mladorossi believed that a Tsar could effectively function within the Soviet system. This position led to them being labeled as "Soviet patriots." The founder of Mladorossi, Alexander Kazembek, was implicated in having connections with the Soviet consulate and the OGPU. At the onset of World War II, many members of Mladorossi volunteered to join the French Resistance. Following the conclusion of the war, the organization was dissolved.

The Soviet Union Turns to The Right: A Stalinist Red Fascism?

In line with the forecasts of Nikolay Ustryalov, the USSR ultimately faced a juncture where Marxist theory required modification to fit the practical context. Lenin's implementation of the NEP marked a deviation from orthodox Marxism. This policy instituted a form of state capitalism intended for the modernization and industrialization of Russia, resonating with the progressive changes that had begun under the Tsarist regime. It is also broadly recognized that the Russian Empire was positioned to potentially outpace Western economies prior to the Bolshevik Revolution.

A. James Gregor argues in Italian Fascism and Developmental Dictatorship that Fascism mobilizes itself through a program of reform-based socialism, with a focus on development and authoritarianism. Fascists believed that Italy's economy was underdeveloped, and the proletariat lacked the technical competence and consciousness necessary for fulfilling developmental tasks. Similarly, in Vladimir Lenin's essay The Immediate Tasks of The Soviet Government, he acknowledged the backwardness of Russia. Lenin recognized that societal development could only be achieved through what he referred to as "sharp forms of dictatorship." He also admitted that the entrepreneurial bourgeoisie would be compelled to collaborate with the Soviet state, drawing a clear parallel with Italian Fascism and its embrace of class collaborationism. Ustryalov and figures like Ernst Jünger, who were outside of Russia, recognized this state-capitalist model as a departure from Marxism.

Recognizing the revolutionary potential of nationalism, the Bolshevik leaders supported the idea of self-determination of nations in theory. They established a federalized system to forge a strong Republic, as detailed in the Soviet Constitution of 1924. This pivotal document laid the foundation for various levels of national-territorial autonomy and introduced a two-chamber Supreme Soviet, aiming to foster a unified yet diverse federation. Lenin, highlighting the need for the Russian working class to spearhead a successful democratic revolution and to join forces with European workers in a socialist revolution, advocated for the rights of all nations oppressed under Tsarist rule to separate and become independent from Russia. His commitment to these ideals was not just theoretical but was actualized on November 15, 1917, when the newly formed Russian-Soviet authority proclaimed The Declaration of The Rights of The Peoples of Russia. This seminal manifesto encapsulated key principles that would guide the regime's governance approach, far beyond mere rhetoric. It was designed as a doctrinal compass, with critical axioms to direct the Soviet government's policy framework and sculpt the political landscape of the new Russia in relation to the diverse ethnicities within its borders.

The declaration highlighted several key points:

1. Equality and sovereignty for all Russian peoples: Ensuring that every group within the federation was viewed and treated as equal, promoting a sense of shared sovereignty among the diverse populace.

2. Right to self-determination and secession for Russian peoples: Affirming the right of every nation within the Russian domain to self-govern or even secede if they chose to, recognizing their autonomy.

3. Elimination of national and religious privileges and restrictions: Removing any legal and systemic biases that favored certain groups over others, aiming for a truly equitable society.

4. Free development for national minorities and ethnographic groups in Russia: Encouraging the cultural, social, and economic development of all groups, regardless of their size or influence.

5. Complete integration and assimilation of all Russian peoples into the Soviet System: Aiming for a cohesive national identity that still respects the uniqueness of its diverse communities, integrating them into the broader Soviet framework.

As the Bolsheviks aimed to transform Russia's political and social landscape, they envisioned a future of greater equality, autonomy, and unity among its diverse citizens. Mirsaid Sultan-Galiev, a Tatar Muslim during the early Soviet era, stood as a vocal advocate for recognizing the unique national identities and self-determination of ethnic groups once marginalized within the Russian Empire. He proposed a concept of National Communism, which argued for a communism adapted to the cultural and historical nuances of different regions. However, Sultan-Galiev's ideas clashed with the centralized governance preferred by the Bolshevik leadership, particularly under Stalin. Stalin sought a uniform socialist state, emphasizing centralized control over Sultan-Galiev's vision of ethnic diversity and regional autonomy. This ideological conflict ultimately positioned Sultan-Galiev's National Communism in direct opposition to Stalin's push for a centralized Soviet Union.

“Based on the experience of the last Russian Revolution, we come to this conclusion that no matter what class comes to power in Russia, no one can bring back the former 'glory' and 'power' of this country. Russia, as a multinational state and a Russian State, is inevitably heading towards fragmentation and division. The result will be one of two things:

Either Russia will be divided into its own national parts and new several national states will be formed, or Russian domination in Russia will be replaced by the common domination of nations. In other words, instead of the dictatorship of the Russian people over all other peoples, the dictatorship of these peoples over the Russian people will take place!

This dilemma is a historical necessity created by circumstances. It is most probable that the first option will be realized. If the latter takes place, it will be only a steppingstone to the first. The old Russia, which today was rebuilt under the name of the USSR, won't last long. It is a temporary thing.

This is the last breath of a dying person, the last flutter. Against the background of the disintegration of Russia, the images of the following national states appear clearly and distinctly: Ukraine (together with Crimea and Belarus), Caucasia (which can exist as an alliance of the North Caucasus with other Caucasian parts), Turan (the alliance of Tatarstan, Bashkortostan, Kyrgyzstan and as the Federation of Turkestan Republics), Siberia, and Velikorussia... We do not count Finland, Poland, and the small Baltic states, which are now separated from Russia, here.

The realities of the liberation movements of the colonies and semi-colonies are clear in this way. There are these liberation movements... They are real... They will progress and evolve!”

— Mirsaid Sultan Galiev, Some of Our Views on The Principles of Socio-Political, Economic and Cultural Development of The Turkic Peoples of Asia and Europe 1929

Sultan-Galiev proposed alternatives to Stalin's centralization, such as autonomy or even complete fragmentation. His standing in the party weakened, and by 1923 he was removed from the Communist party for nationalist tendencies, leading to his arrest and years of exile. Released in 1928, he returned to his home in Tatarstan to involve himself in cultural and educational work. Sultan-Galiev's life met a tragic end during Stalin's purges; arrested again in 1940, he was likely executed between 1941 and 1942, though details of his death are uncertain.

In parallel, Vasyl Shakhrai, connected to the Poltava Bolsheviks, also promoted National Communism. But in Ukraine, it was Mykola Skrypnyk and Christian Rakovsky who became the main proponents of this ideology. The 1920s saw a cadre of Ukrainian visionaries earnestly advancing National Communism. Using the pseudonym Skorovstansky, Shakhrai boldly advocated for addressing the national issue as part of the broader social agenda. Yurii Lapchynsky and P. Slynko, leading the Federalist Opposition, pushed for an independent Soviet Ukraine and the creation of a separate Ukrainian Communist party (UKP). The UKP, established in 1920, became a mouthpiece for denouncing Ukraine's economic exploitation under the Soviets and for championing Ukrainian sovereignty. The idea of an autonomous Ukraine within the Soviet structure spurred aspirations for national emancipation. Ukrainian communists like Oleksander Shumsky and Mykola Skrypnyk sought a hastened move toward independence, desiring the affirmation of Ukraine's national identity within the Soviet framework. However, by 1926, Stalin denounced these ideas, leading to the political downfall of Shumsky and the stifling of National Communism. The harrowing party purges of 1933 fiercely targeted proponents of National Communism, effectively ending the public advocacy of such ideas in Ukraine.

1958 Soviet propaganda depicting a Ukrainian nationalist and his Western capitalist master

From the 1930s onwards, the national policy of the Soviet Union began to lose its focus on self-determination. The Soviet leaders started to elevate the role of the Russian nation and downplayed the importance of other nationalities. During the Soviet era, all nations fell victim to Sovietization, including the Russians themselves. Peasant communities were dismantled, religious institutions were suppressed, and cultural expressions such as literature, music, and art were forbidden if they were deemed to have "anti-socialist content." Specific nationalities were disproportionately affected by Soviet political campaigns. For example, the collectivization and mass deportations of rich peasants to Siberia had a devastating impact on Ukraine, where resistance to collectivization was strongest. The Holodomor, a man-made famine, was imposed on the Ukrainian population. The forced settlement of nomadic populations also severely affected the Kazakhs. The purges of national cadres had a significant impact on the Jewish population, with a large number of Jews being dismissed from leading positions in the Communist party and the government by the end of the 1930s.

During World War II, the lines between Soviet patriotism and Russian nationalism blurred, casting the conflict not only as a battle between Communists and fascists but also as a critical fight for the survival of the Russian identity itself. The conflict was dubbed "The Great Patriotic War," emphasizing a national struggle for existence over class conflicts. In this era, Stalin's regime revived Russia's historic icons and heroes and even allied temporarily with the Russian Orthodox Church, building on Lenin's earlier notions of "proletarian-patriotism" and "bourgeois-nationalism." Interestingly, the French fascist and Nazi collaborator Pierre Drieu La Rochelle explored a similar fusion of national and social identity in his book on Fascist Socialism, where he describes fascism using a comparable framework of nationalist sentiment intertwined with proletarian consciousness.

Sven Olov Lindholm offers a National Socialist interpretation to this:

"The distaste felt by the 'working class' for everything national was due to the fact that this concept had been monopolized by a haughty upper class and a complacent, conservative bourgeoisie - it was considered to be associated with capitalism and militarism. We wanted to remove this discredit, wanted to mobilize the healthy national from the depth of the people. And everything that stood in the way, everything crooked, unjust and distorted in the old system must therefore be removed. Instead of the old bourgeois class nationalism, we wanted to put the fatherland of the working people."

— Sven Olov Lindholm, Döm ingen ohörd

Orthodox priests blessing Red Army soldiers during World War II

In Stalin's victory speech, he highlighted the special qualities of the Russian people that contributed to their triumph in the war. The new Soviet national anthem also emphasized the role of Great Russia. By the 1940s, leaders of the Soviet Republics and regions were essentially puppets of Moscow, showing complete obedience to the national policy of the Soviet government. Interestingly, internationalism was redefined as mutual cooperation between nations, similar to the concept of international-nationalism advocated by North Korea's Juche ideology. Although Stalin had been involved with nationalist movements in his native Georgia, he eventually rejected nationalism. However, it is evident that he recognized the existence of nations and their significance.

“A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of common language, territory, economic life and physical make up manifested in common culture.”

— Joseph Stalin, Marxism and The National Question

Stalin indeed recognized the importance of nation-building and aimed to construct a monolithic, united Soviet Republic, in contrast to Lenin's approach of forming ethnic territories. The Soviet state aimed to establish a Russian national culture, with the belief that the State would be "national in form, socialist in content." However, the Bolsheviks underestimated the power of nationalism. Without the full development of a homogenized state, the transition from nationalism to internationalism could not occur. Consequently, the Russian state reverted to nationalism instead of embracing class consciousness.

In the official Soviet ideology, the concept of "unreliable nationalities" emerged. Ethnic groups accused of collaborating with the Nazis were deemed unreliable and subjected to deportation and collective punishment. The Volga Germans, Chechens, Crimean Tatars, and many other nationalities were forcibly deported from their homelands to Central Asia and Kazakhstan, resulting in the loss of countless lives. Furthermore, the Communist elite began to draw on aspects of Tsarist history to shape a unified national identity and create a common historical narrative. By 1936, Lenin's original policy of national self-determination had waned, and the new Soviet constitution emphasized the "Friendship of The Peoples." This highlighted that the Soviet Union was not just a collection of multi-ethnic groups but a civilization. Political institutions in non-Russian federations were gradually Russified to ensure Soviet dominance within the national borders.

“The bizarre dialectic of history has unexpectedly brought Soviet power with its ideology of the international into the role of a national factor in modern Russian life – while our nationalism, while remaining unshakable in principle, has faded and faded in practice due to its chronic alliances and compromises with the so-called “allies.”

Be that as it may, the armed struggle against the Bolsheviks failed. It may seem paradoxical, but the unification of Russia is under the sign of Bolshevism, which has become imperialist and centralist, almost to a greater extent than P.N. Milyukov.”

— Nikolay Ustryalov, Under The Sign of The Revolution

After the Western nations' policy of appeasement failed to curb Hitler's breach of the Munich Agreement, the Soviet Union, initially not a party to the agreement, started open talks with Britain and France for a possible coalition against Hitler. Concurrently, Stalin was covertly discussing terms with Germany. In a surprising turn of events in August, the German-Soviet Credit Agreement and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact were announced, with Joachim von Ribbentrop representing Germany. In a stark betrayal, Stalin also extradited around five hundred German Communists, who had fled to the Soviet Union for sanctuary, back to Germany.

These agreements included clandestine protocols that carved up Central and Eastern Europe into respective zones of influence for the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany. Within a month's time, both powers invaded Poland, going as far as to conduct joint military parades in captured cities such as Brest-Litovsk and Lviv.

Photos of the Nazi-Soviet joint parade in Brest-Litovsk on September 22, 1939

The Soviet Story Documentary, covers the Axis-Soviet collaboration

Following the initial agreements of the German-Soviet Credit Agreement and the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, further talks between the USSR and Germany took place. These talks resulted in another treaty where Germany ceded Lithuania to the Soviets in exchange for Stalin's recognition of Hitler's occupation of Warsaw and Lublin in Poland. The treaty also included protocols regarding a population transfer between Germany and the Soviet Union, as well as the sharing of intelligence to suppress the Polish Resistance against the occupation. Subsequent discussions in Moscow focused on expanding economic and political cooperation between the Nazis and the Soviets. Molotov and Ribbentrop openly declared that this cooperation would serve as a "solid foundation for peace in Eastern Europe." The news of Stalin's perceived "betrayal" by some German communists was so devastating that they reportedly committed suicide.

In fact Hitler said this regarding these new found relations with the Soviets:

"It is not Germany that will turn Bolshevist, but Bolshevism that will become a sort of National Socialism. Besides, there is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it..."

— Adolf Hitler, Hitler Speaks

“However it is conceivable that in Russia itself, an inner change within the Bolshevik world could take place. Insofar as the Jewish element could perhaps be forced aside by a more or less Russian national one. Then it could also not be excluded that the present real Jewish capitalist bolshevik Russia, could be driven to nationalist anti-capitalist tendencies.”

— Adolf Hitler, Hitler: The Politics of Seduction by Rainer Zitelmann

These statements are further substantiated by Goebbels.

“The Fuehrer thinks that Bolshevism is the state organization corresponding to Slavism today […] Stalin is a modern Ivan the Terrible or for my sake [sic!] also a Peter the Great.”

— Joseph Goebbels, January 12, 1940

In reaction to the invasion of Poland, Britain and France declared war on Germany, prompting the Communist International to halt all anti-Fascist efforts. Communist parties across the globe were compelled to decry the conflict as an 'imperialist' war and to reject funding for the war effort, leading to the disintegration of anti-Fascist Popular Fronts. In a notable shift from earlier stances, Soviet media contended that condemning Nazi ideology ought to be outlawed. Interestingly, the Italian Fascists maintained relatively positive relations with the Soviet Union during the Italo-Soviet Pact. They even released a state-sponsored book titled "Il Trionfo Del Fascismo Nell URSS" (The Triumph of Fascism In The USSR) by Renzo Bertoni, which compared the similarities between Fascism and Stalin's Marxism.

"By 1938, Mussolini could confidently assert that ‘in the face of the total collapse of the system [bequeathed] by Lenin, Stalin has covertly transformed himself into a Fascist.“

— A. James Gregor, The Fascist Persuasion In Radical Politics

In Italy, Nicola Bombacci, the founder of the communist party who later joined the Fascist movement, expressed the following sentiment:

"Fascism has brought about a remarkable Social Revolution, combining the ideologies of Mussolini and Lenin, embracing the Soviet and Fascist corporate state, uniting Rome and Moscow. Although some positions needed adjustment, we have no reason to seek forgiveness, as both in the past and present, we are driven by the same ideal: the triumph of labor."

— Nicola Bombacci, La Verita

Moreover the Spanish Falangist thinker Ramiro Ledesma Ramos came to a similar conclusion as Mussolini and Bombacci.

“Soviet Communism is increasingly turning into National Communism. Stalin carried out a turn from the World Proletarian Revolution of Lenin to the National Russian Revolution."

— Ramiro Ledesma Ramos, The Free Motherland: Body of The J.O.N.S.

Walter Ulbricht, who later became the leader of East Germany, was once a member of the Communist party of Germany's Central Committee. He played a significant role as a communist organizer in the Berlin-Brandenburg area and served as a member of both the Saxon Landtag and the Reichstag before 1933. In February 1940, while in exile in the USSR, Ulbricht published an article titled The Purpose of The War, in which he disseminated propaganda on behalf of the Soviet state to the German-speaking diaspora. The article aimed to address those who still had concerns about German-Soviet collaboration.

In his article, Ulbricht presented the Second World War not as a war for liberty against tyrannical imperialism, but rather as an anti-socialist war by reactionary-capitalist powers against the growing strength of the Soviet Union. He portrayed the German-Soviet alliance as a reflection of the German government's recognition of the power and vitality of the Soviet nation and its socialism, as well as the increasing influence of the German working masses over their government. While Ulbricht did not praise National Socialism or justify the actions of the German government, he presented it as a nation desiring peace, which was continually denied by the plutocratic powers of the West, including England, whom he referred to as the "most reactionary force in the world." This position garnered attention, particularly among non-Stalinist communists.

The platform of the Communist party of Germany, which was drafted by the German Commission of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, was largely based in Moscow at the time. The platform, approved in January 1940 by the Comintern executive and Stalin himself, was careful not to praise or apologize for the Hitler regime. However, it did recast Nazi Germany as a state that had taken some steps towards progressive improvement, citing the signing of various Soviet-German Pacts as evidence. The platform called for German communists to encourage the development of progressive conditions in Germany, including organizing a united "fighting front" with Nazi and Italian Fascist workers against their common enemies, such as bourgeois-conservatives, Freemasons, and English and French Imperialists. It also advocated infiltrating the NSDAP's mass organizations and redirecting them towards a more pro-Soviet orientation.

To summarize, A James Gregor states:

"By the end of the 1920s and the beginning of the 1930s, Stalin had created a regime that had abandoned every principle that had presumably typified left-wing aspirations and had given himself over to notions of ‘socialism in one country’ — with all the attendant attributes: nationalism, the leadership principle, anti-liberalism, anti-individualism, communitarianism, hierarchical rule, missionary zeal, the employment of violence to assure national purpose, and anti-Semitism — making the Soviet Union unmistakably ‘a cousin to the German National Socialism.“

— A. James Gregor, The Faces of Janus: Marxism and Fascism In The Twentieth Century

Following World War II, the Soviet Union initiated a political campaign against "cosmopolitanism," which resulted in the persecution of the intelligentsia. It is worth noting that the majority of those accused and targeted for having pro-Western leanings were Jewish individuals. This persecution led to loss of employment and imprisonment. In 1952, prominent Jewish intellectuals, including scientists, Yiddish writers, and poets, were secretly tried, convicted, and executed. The anti-Jewish sentiment reached its peak with the investigation of the "Jewish doctors' plot" in 1952. Jewish doctors were accused of deliberately providing incorrect treatments and poisoning Communist party leaders.

The rise in anti-Semitism was thought to be a precursor to the planned deportation of all Soviet Jews to Birobidzhan, an isolated town in the Far East. However, Stalin was unable to realize this plan. It is important to note that Stalin was not a true nationalist nor an ideological conservative. He strategically employed nationalism during World War II to foster stability, morale, and cohesion within the Soviet Union and to combat the Axis Powers. Stalin's actions were not solely focused on anti-Semitism; he targeted various ethnic and religious groups perceived as threats to his power, including Poles, Baltic peoples, Finns, and Tatars. The Jews were also subject to persecution, particularly when their Communist ideology aligned with Zionist goals or when Israel showed pro-American leanings.

This purported "anti-Semitism" primarily served geopolitical purposes and reactionary anti-Zionism, rather than stemming from genuine animosity towards a specific ethnic or racial group. Moreover, it is important to consider that a significant number of individuals in positions of power within the Soviet political hierarchy were Jewish, resulting in a statistical likelihood of their inclusion in any purge, regardless of ideological motives. Stalin's purges in the late 1930s mainly targeted Trotskyites, who posed a genuine threat to Stalin and his newly established government. Many of those loyal to Trotsky were forcibly removed, and due to their affiliation, a considerable number happened to be of Jewish heritage.

“There can be no serious doubt that Trotskyites in alliance with other old Bolsheviks such as Zinoviev and Kameneff were complicit in attempting to overthrow the Soviet state under Stalin. That was after all, the raison d’etre of Trotsky et al, and Trotsky’s hubris could not conceal his aims. The purging of these anti-Stalinist co-conspirators was only a part of the Stalinist fight against the Old Bolsheviks.”

— Kerry Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy

Lenin and Trotsky expressed a desire for a closer relationship with international capitalism, particularly with international Jewish banks that had supported Bolshevism from its inception. It is important to note that Stalin, contrary to popular myth and legend, was not Jewish. He was a committed Communist who financed the Bolshevik Revolution through bank robberies rather than borrowing from banks. Stalin subsequently pursued economic self-sufficiency and implemented full-scale collectivization of industry and agriculture in the USSR, resulting in catastrophic consequences for peasants and workers.

“In this context, the contrasting figures of Leon Trotsky and Stalin emerge as symbols of this ideological divergence. Trotsky, embodying the Western perspective, represents a worldview rooted in Western Marxism and internationalism. Stalin, on the other hand, personifies the essence of Eurasianism and pragmatism. The stark difference between these two figures highlights the deep ideological rift within the Soviet Union, a microcosm of the larger East-West divide.“

— Constantine von Hoffmeister, Stalin’s Eurasian Empire

Anti-Trotsky propaganda

However, Stalin did introduce more favorable policies in the social sphere of the Soviet Union. He sought to strengthen the institution of the family and marriage, restricted access to abortion, reinstated discipline and standards in education, recriminalized homosexuality, and combated what he saw as rootless cosmopolitanism and formalism in art and culture. He promoted artistic styles rooted in folk culture that had the potential to resonate with and elevate the tastes of the masses, rather than pure modernist imagery. Exiled Trotskyists in the United States, along with the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the Rockefeller Foundation, promoted Abstract Expressionism and other forms of modern art as a response to what they perceived as Stalinist philistinism. The US government used taxpayer funds to support what the Germans referred to as "Cultural Bolshevism" or "Cultural Marxism" in the art world as a symbolic opposition to Stalin.

Stalin's policies were viewed as anti-Semitic by some Jewish Communists who held significant influence within Bolshevism. However, it is unfair to categorize Stalin as an anti-Semite solely based on this. Despite his opposition to Trotsky and Zionism, and his execution of Jewish Bolsheviks during the purges, Stalin managed to maintain support from many Jewish Communists throughout his tenure. Rather than being driven by inherent anti-Semitism, Stalin's actions can be seen as responses to the opposition he faced from certain Jewish individuals who disagreed with his policies and vision for Communism, as Joe Sobran describes.

“Glorious 1937! In that year, Stalin finally came to understand that it was Zionism, not communism that was being built in the USSR - and he destroyed it.”

— Viktor Fliatov quoted in Stalin’s 1937 Counter-Revolution Against Trotskyism by Andrei Burovsky

"We needed to instill a Nazi-style hatred of Jews throughout the Islamic world and turn this weapon of emotions into a terrorist bloodbath against Israel and its main defender, the United States."

— Yuri Andropov quoted in Disinformation: Former Spy Chief Reveals Secret Strategies for Undermining Freedom, Attacking Religion, and Promoting Terrorism by Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa and Prof. Ronald J. Rychlak

Nevertheless, Stalin did transform the ethnic character of Soviet Communism from something predominantly Jewish and nihilistic to something distinctively Russian and nationalistic in its outlook. While Jews held a privileged position in the USSR at first, they no longer felt that the regime belonged to them. According to Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together, after Stalin's death, the regime actively took steps to reduce Jewish overrepresentation in elite institutions. This gradual change in Stalin's approach is evident in his alleged Last Testament, where he supposedly altered many of his views, aligning with the significant shifts in Soviet policy.

“The old generation is completely infected with Zionism, our only hope is for the youth. The time has come to announce a new crusade against the International, and only a new Russian Order can lead it, the creation of which must be started immediately.”

— Joseph Stalin, Last Testament (https://ruskline.ru/news_rl/2019/03/05/zavewanie_vozhdya#bounce)

A comparison between the Early Soviet Union and Stalinist Russia.

During that era, numerous influential revolutionaries openly criticized the counter-revolutionary actions and authoritarian practices carried out by the Bolsheviks under Stalin's leadership. For instance, Emma Goldman grew disenchanted with the situation in Russia and vehemently condemned the Soviet Union, labeling it as a state capitalist entity. Otto Rühle similarly asserted that "the fight against Fascism starts with the fight against Bolshevism," while Russian anarchist Voline, who had actively participated in the Russian and Ukrainian revolutions, characterized the USSR under Stalin as "Red Fascism."

Hence statements like this being made by those against Stalinism and Hitlerism:

"Hitlerism is brown Communism, Stalinism is Red Fascism. The world will now understand that the only real ideological issue is one between democracy, liberty, and peace on the one hand and despotism, peril, and war on the other."

— The New York Times September 18, 1939

Within fascist ideology, the concept of private property primarily pertains to individuals who possess modest properties, such as small-scale farmers, craftsmen, artisans, and the "petit-bourgeois" class. This stands in clear contrast to the perspective of figures like José Antonio Primo de Rivera, who defines private property as the "property of man" as opposed to the "property of capital" (usury) associated with the bourgeois mode of production. This understanding of property does not inherently conflict with socialism.

“As you know very well, when we speak of capitalism, we are not speaking of property. Private property is the opposite of capitalism: property is the direct projection of the individual on matter; it is a basic human attribute. Capitalism has gradually replaced this property of the individual with the property of capital, the technical instrument of economic domination. With the dreadful and unfair competition between large capital and small private property, capitalism has gradually annihilated craftsmanship, small industry, and small-scale agriculture; it has gradually delivered everything — and is increasingly doing so — into the hands of the big trusts, of the big banking concerns. Ultimately, capitalism reduces bosses and workers, employees and employers, to the selfsame state of anxiety, to the same subhuman condition of the man deprived of all his attributes, whose life is stripped of all meaning."

— Jose Antionio Primo de Rivera, Selected Writings

For communism private property, is distinct from personal possessions, it’s an institution that alienates individuals from their means of production. It is characterized by pure alienation, lacking human attributes. Private property does not represent individual ownership but rather an alienated form of property. It is associated with usury, wars, and societal breakdown. This understanding of private property aligns with the fascist perspective. Fascists also view the property of capital as an institution that transcends individual ownership and serves its own interests. They see it as a means of consolidating power, exerting control, and subjugating societies. Both perspectives emphasize the anti-social, anti-human nature of private property and its detrimental effects on civilization if we can get past the different uses of language to explain the same thing.

Communists advocate for a gradual approach to abolishing private property, focusing on policies that render it obsolete over time. Similarly, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany followed a gradualist path by gradually increasing state control and opposing private property, while still allowing for personal possessions. In fact, even the 1936 Soviet Constitution, which was drafted and approved by Stalin, guaranteed the rights of small-scale farmers and artisans to own plots of land and participate in local, private, domestic markets.

“ARTICLE 10: The right of citizens to personal ownership of their incomes from work and of their savings, of their dwelling houses and subsidiary household economy, their household furniture and utensils and articles of personal use and convenience, as well as the right of inheritance of personal property of citizens, is protected by law.”

— Constitution of The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, December 5th, 1936

This suggests that the similarities between Communism and Fascism regarding property might be attributed to a translation error. Once we consider the proper context, as explained, a clearer correlation between the two ideologies emerges. Therefore, in this particular context, National Bolshevism gains greater credibility in its justification. In the later years of the Soviet era, there was an increase in the policy of private farming. Specifically, under Brezhnev's leadership, these private plots were expanded to the extent that they contributed approximately a quarter of Soviet agricultural production.

"About one-quarter of Soviet agricultural production still comes from the private plots. These specialize in potatoes, contributing about 65% of total output, other vegetables about 40% of total, meat and milk 35% of total, and eggs 50% of total output. The dependency on private plots was even greater in the pre-war period.”

“In 1937, when conditions in the socialized sector were very good indeed, privately operated plots provided 52.1% of the total output of potatoes and vegetables, and 56.6% of that of fruit. For animal products the corresponding percentages were: milk, 71.4%; meat, 70.9%; hides, 70.4%; wool, 43%.”

— Michael Goldfield and Melvin Rothenberg, The Myth of Capitalism Reborn: A Marxist Critique of Theories of Capitalist Restoration In The USSR

The Eurasianist movement, though relatively obscure in intellectual and political spheres, saw some of its principles tangentially reflected during the Stalinist period of the Soviet regime. Eurasianist thinkers like George Vernadsky interpreted Stalin's aggressive policies of industrialization, centralization, and territorial expansion as a continuation of the Russian state's historical trajectory, essential steps for Russia to engage with the emerging geopolitical and geo-economic landscape. Beginning in the late 1930s, particularly from 1937 onwards, the Soviet government under Stalin began to reintegrate nationalist, patriotic, and imperialist themes from the old Russian Empire, which had been largely sidelined since the Bolshevik Revolution.

Stalin conducted purges against those who strictly adhered to Marxist orthodoxy, cosmopolitans, and those with utopian aspirations, with a considerable number of the purged being Jewish, as these groups were perceived as obstacles to the establishment of a disciplined order and the cultivation of creative and austere values. Notably, even Konstantin Rodzaevsky, who led the Russian Fascist party, ultimately saw in Stalin a kind of 'fascistic' leader for the Russian people, or "Vozhd." Nonetheless, despite Rodzaevsky's later attempts to reconcile with the Soviet government, he was executed for his anti-Soviet activities during the Second World War.

During the Soviet era, Russian nationalism was strategically blended with Marxism-Leninism to strengthen the state's mobilization efforts. The Soviet regime, particularly through the Komsomol and the Red Army, endorsed and even encouraged a form of National Bolshevism. As noted by Martin A. Lee in The Beast Reawakens, the post-World War II period saw an amplification of the Conservative Revolutionary facet of Stalinism. The Soviet military extracted geopolitical and ideological lessons from its adversaries during the war, which also served to energize domestic nationalist sentiments and sharpen the consciousness regarding broader continental interests.

The visual and cultural narrative of the Soviet Union in the 1940s took on a distinctly nationalist tone, exhibiting Russophilic and occasionally chauvinistic motifs, reminiscent more of the Third Reich's imagery than the avant-garde, cosmopolitan, and proletarian aesthetics of the 1920s Leninist era. Under Stalinism, it was the driven, statist, imperialist, nationalist, and anti-bourgeois forces that prevailed, rather than the theoretical purists of Marxism.

Stalinist "nationalism" was not rooted in Russian ethnic identity but was crafted from an "imperial," Eurasian, and continental viewpoint, which bore a remarkable similarity to the Eurasianist ideology. The campaign of "militant atheism," once led by Emelyan Yaroslavsky—who was Jewish—was disbanded, and Yaroslavsky himself was relegated to a gulag. The Conservative Revolutionary momentum began to wane with Stalin's passing, coinciding with the zenith of his policies on Imperialism, Eurasianism, and anti-Zionism.

Soviet anti-Zionist propaganda

Stalin's non-Russian ethnic background shielded him from charges of harboring nationalistic biases, and his atheistic stance meant that religious considerations had no place in his personal affairs. Free from nostalgic attachments, he continued to be a staunch revolutionary. Yet, it is contended that Stalin, motivated by practicality, enacted measures that bore traces of nationalism and social conservatism within the socialist framework of the USSR. This practical stance likely stemmed from his awareness of the necessity to consolidate the Soviet state's power and promote cohesion among its various ethnic populations.

"Stalin, in turn, transformed Marxism into a rationale for national socialism… Leon Trotsky was equally quick to condemn the advocacy of socialism in one country, a commitment which further eroded classical Marxism."

— A. James Gregor, The Ideology of Fascism: The Rationale of Totalitarianism

With the close of Stalin's regime, Nikita Khrushchev initiated a move to dismantle the cult of personality surrounding his predecessor, marking a distinct departure from Stalinist governance. He revived his critique of the Church and rekindled the internationalist spirit that was prominent in Lenin's era during the 1920s. This transition represented a nadir for Eurasianist influence in Soviet history. Under Khrushchev, the Soviet Union shifted its geopolitical focus to maritime strategies, highlighting regions like Cuba, Latin America, and Africa in its foreign policy agenda. This shift led to the emergence of a group of dissenters who leaned towards pro-Western and "Atlanticist" perspectives, in contrast to Khrushchev's attempt to return to a more orthodox Marxism.

When Leonid Brezhnev came to power following Khrushchev's ousting, he returned to a more Stalin-like approach, though it was infused with a sense of decline and stagnation. The Soviet Union's involvement in Eurasian conflicts, such as those in Vietnam, the Middle East, and particularly the land war in Afghanistan, reflected a resurgence in geopolitical awareness. Nevertheless, Marxism during the Brezhnev era had degenerated into a largely ceremonial and superficial doctrine. Beneath the façade of the Brezhnevian regime, the lingering ideological and geopolitical momentum of Eurasian Stalinism remained apparent.

Throughout the Soviet Union's existence, there were currents that could be characterized as "Eurasianist" and, to some degree, "Conservative Revolutionary," spanning from the October Revolution to the period of Perestroika. The Stalinist period, however, is particularly noted for its pronounced and identifiable traces of these ideologies. It should be recognized that these "Conservative Revolutionary" elements did not have a fully fleshed-out theoretical framework, yet they were significant as they represented the parallel ideological currents of Soviet rulers who wielded near-absolute power domestically and shaped the USSR's external persona. There are suggestions that Brezhnev, during a discussion with British Prime Minister James Callaghan, made remarks that alluded to a sense of white racial identity, potentially as a counterbalance to Chinese influence.

“Mr Prime Minister, there is only one important question facing us, and that is the question of whether the white race will survive.”

— Leonid Brezhnev, Scientist As Rebel by Freeman Dyson

In the aftermath of the Sino-Soviet split, the Soviet Union endeavored to promote unity among peoples identified with the "white race." This attempt was humorously critiqued by Otto von Habsburg in a 1973 piece for the Saturday Evening Post. His article was later included as part of the official documentation in hearings held by the Ways and Means Committee, chaired by Representative Blackburn. However, this racial theme in Soviet policy during the '70s has often been overlooked or intentionally omitted from historical narratives.

The USSR's military strategies were imbued with Eurasianist elements, as the United States—seen as the pinnacle of Atlanticist influence—was the Soviets' main ideological opponent. While NATO focused on maritime Anglo-American interests, the Warsaw Pact presented a distinct Eurasian and continental stance. The Anglo-American bloc was perceived as embodying the most potent and unadulterated form of capitalism, which became the target of various Conservative Revolution movements, including the Russian iteration.

In the 1970s, there was a noticeable resurgence of the Russian Conservative Revolution within the Soviet Union, though it manifested subtly. A new generation of Soviet authors, inspired by Mikhail Sholokhov, the celebrated author of And Quiet Flows The Don, began to emerge. Figures such as Valentin Rasputin, Vasily Belov, and Viktor Astafyev rose to prominence, championing nationalist, ecological, and Slavophile ideals. Their work, part of the neo-potchvennikis movement, celebrated Russian rural life, traditions, and philosophies, incorporating ecological insights that indirectly echoed the principles of National Bolshevism. This ideological stance often reflected a necessity to adapt rather than a deliberate choice of expression.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, Lev Gumilyov, a historian, became a significant figure in the Soviet Union, deliberately embracing Eurasianist ideologies. As the son of the executed poet Nikolay Gumilyov and the renowned poetess Anna Akhmatova, Lev Gumilyov penned extensive works on the history of Eurasian peoples like the Turks, Mongols, and Huns. His magnum opus work, Ethnogenesis and The Biosphere, secured a spot in Brezhnev's Moscow Library of Social Sciences, despite Gumilyov's ideological scrutiny. In this work, he proposed the organic theory of ethnogenesis, introducing "passionarity" as a crucial dynamic in the vitality and creative drive of ethnic groups, going beyond mere survival instincts.

Gumilyov's theories resonated with the works of thinkers like Lorenz, H. Gunter, Gabineau, the Haushofer school's geopoliticians, and the French New Right. His historical perspective was deeply rooted in paganism, particularly evident in his concept of ethnic chimeras—ancient groups that had lost their "passionarity" and vitality. These chimeras symbolized the intellectual quandary of Russian Conservative Revolution trends, which persisted in a subdued, almost subconscious form within the Soviet Union.

Drawing from the context laid out above, a quote by Aleksandr Dugin might add further insight into the discussion:

“In Russia, it was precisely ‘right-wing Marxism’ which reigned supreme, having been given the name ‘Bolshevism.’ But that is not to say that these conditions were found only in Russia. One can find a similar lineage in communist parties and movements the world over, provided of course they don’t degenerate into a social - democracy that conforms to the liberal spirit.”

— Alexander Dugin, Templars of the Proletariat

The Cold War: Red-Brown Alliances and Third Worldist Nationalism

During the onset of the Cold War, both the US and the USSR recruited former fascists for their skills and knowledge to advance their geopolitical goals. The USSR's Operation Osoaviakhim, also known as Soviet Alsos, sought out scientists with atomic expertise to bolster the Soviet Union's capabilities. Over 2,200 former Nazi scientists, including notables like Peter Adolf Thiessen, Manfred von Ardenne, and Nikolaus Riehl, were brought to the USSR, in a move that overshadowed the US's Operation Paperclip.

Otto Grotewohl, the former Premier of East Germany, once controversially claimed that Soviet intelligence extricated Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess from Spandau prison on March 18, 1952. Hess was purportedly offered a leadership role in the National Democratic party of East Germany (NDPD) and a prominent government position in exchange for supporting Communism and the Soviet Union. Hess declined and stayed in Spandau until his death, but East Germany didn't stop its recruitment of ex-NSDAP members.

Wilhelm Adam, a former SA member, joined the Soviet-supported National Committee for a Free Germany during World War II and later helped establish the NDPD with Communist Lothar Bolz. The party aimed to attract former Nazis with a blend of socialism and patriotism. The NDPD became a significant force in East German politics, securing a substantial number of seats in the Volkskammer and amassing a significant membership.

In West Germany, Major General Otto Ernst Remer, famous for foiling the attempt on Hitler's life in 1944, co-founded the Socialist Reich party (SRP) in 1949 alongside Fritz Dorls and Gerhard Krüger, both of whom had Nazi affiliations. The SRP, with a membership of over 10,000 and a paramilitary wing called "Reichsfront," received secret support from the Soviet Union and East Germany but was banned in 1952.

Historians like Ernst Nolte, Martin A. Lee, Peter Levenda, Michael Butleigh, Christopher Andrew, and Vasili Mitrokhin have documented the SRP's reliance on Soviet funding. This financial aid was channeled due to the KPD's perceived ineffectiveness in West Germany. The SRP, which championed Stalin's vision for a neutral, unified Germany, was financed through clandestine Soviet channels, as revealed by declassified CIA documents and confirmed by KGB records. These documents, including the Mitrokhin Archive, highlight the extensive support and communication between the SRP and the KGB. Notably, Remer famously stated that he would "show the way to the Rhine" in the event of a Soviet invasion of West Germany. His motivation for aligning with the Soviets can be traced back to a historical precedent set by Otto von Bismarck.

“We Germans must leave the NATO alliance. We must be militarily independent. We must create a nuclear-free zone. We must come to an understanding with the Russians. That is, we must obtain reasonable borders from the Russians. They are the only ones that can do that. The Americans don't have any influence at all in that regard.

In return, we will guarantee to buy [Russian] raw materials, and cooperate on hundreds of projects with the Russians, and that will eliminate our unemployment. All this has nothing to do with ideology. The Russians are so economically backward that they will readily and happily agree to this, and they'll be free of ideology.”

“That's because Bismarck pursued a policy oriented toward the East, and as a result of his "Reinsurrance Treaty" [1887] with Russia, we had 44 years of peace.“

— Otto Ernst Remer, An Interview With General Otto Ernst Remer conducted by Stephanie Schoeman

Even after the SRP was banned, Remer continued to serve the interests of the Soviet Union. He sought refuge in Egypt and became an advisor to Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser, engaging in arms sales to various liberation movements, including the Algerian National Liberation Front, the Palestinian Liberation Organization, and reportedly providing 4,000 pistols to Fidel Castro. The East German Stasi also recruited other former members of the SS intelligence service, such as Joseph Settik and Hans Sommer, to conduct espionage activities in West Germany and abroad.

Following the establishment of the DDR, known as East Germany, brought a renewed sense of purpose to the German people. In contrast to West Germany, which embraced Americanization and capitalism with the support of its Western counterparts, the DDR emerged as a stronghold of authentic German customs and principles. Operating under a communist ideology, East Germany not only upheld the values of social equality and community solidarity, but also diligently safeguarded and revived the genuine German way of life. It steadfastly resisted the encroachment of Western cultural decline, preserving its Germanness. Under the DDR, cultural festivities such as Erntedankfest (harvest festival) and traditional Christmas markets were observed with socialist influences. The state actively promoted folk arts, music, and dance as an alternative to the perceived decadence of Western popular culture. Alongside this, the DDR also sought to revive aspects of Prussian tradition within Germany.

“The GDR re-erected the statue of Frederick the Great on Unter den Linden in East Berlin. This decision might seem surprising given the socialist government’s general distance from monarchist symbols. However, the choice can be seen in a broader context. Frederick the Great was not just a monarch; he was a patron of the arts, a musician, and a philosopher. By celebrating him, the GDR highlighted the rich cultural and intellectual traditions of the German people, which aligned with the state’s efforts to promote a distinct German cultural identity under socialism. The GDR defined its role as the legitimate successor to positive aspects of German history. Frederick — with his Enlightenment-inspired governance, reforms, and the modernization of Prussia — was seen as a figure representing progress, a theme the GDR wanted to associate with.”

— Constantine von Hoffmeister, East Germany and The AFD

On February 26th, 1948, the Soviet Military Administration in occupied Germany issued "Order No. 35," officially putting an end to denazification proceedings in the Soviet zone of occupation. Shortly afterward, preparations began under Soviet supervision for the establishment of a sanctioned political party known as the National-Democratic party of Germany. The NDPD, founded on July 16th, 1948, initially had Lothar Bolz, a longtime communist, as its chairman. However, most of its founding committee and subsequent membership consisted of former Wehrmacht officers, professional soldiers, and ex-members of the NSDAP and other nationalist organizations.

The USSR encouraged East Germans to rally in defense of their "Socialist Fatherland" and its Eastern Bloc allies against the power and influence of the United States. The NDPD was seen as a means to reach out to the "radical, right-wing" forces in West Germany, demonstrating the forgiving attitude of Soviet and German communist authorities towards former fascists. Through publications such as an Open Letter to Former Soldiers, Officers, and Members of The NSDAP, the NDPD provided a platform for transferring pro-Soviet sympathies to nationalists in the West.

The NDPD served as both a communist propaganda tool and a political representative of a new "National Socialism." While advocating for employment rights and property reinstatement for former NSDAP, SA, and Wehrmacht members, the NDPD also sought to instill a revised form of Nazism aligned with Marxist-Leninist principles underlying the DDR. This was achieved by repurposing certain elements of National Socialist ideology to serve pro-Soviet objectives. For instance, they redefined the term "National" to convey a progressive and democratic connotation and redirected anti-Western sentiments towards a more overt and aggressive anti-American stance. Furthermore, the NDPD emphasized Prussia, particularly its military traditions, as a foundation of German identity. Consequently, National Socialism, at least symbolically, persisted in the DDR.

Under Nicolae Ceausescu's rule in Romania, nationalist sentiments were prominently voiced by individuals such as the writer Eugen Barbu and Corneliu Vadim Tudor. Tudor, in particular, would go on to establish the nationalist Greater Romania party in the post-communist era. Initially, Ceausescu embraced National Communism, a blend of nationalist ideology and communist principles. Throughout his tenure, he sought to infuse his governance with nationalist rhetoric, which was a significant shift from the earlier, purely communist regime. This shift included a relaxation of the state's anti-religious policies and an effort to rehabilitate the reputations of fascist intellectuals, including Nicolae Iorga and Eugen Lovinescu, despite the regime's ongoing censorship of outspoken anti-communist views.

Ceausescu pursued a foreign policy designed to maintain Romanian autonomy from superpower dominance, cultivating ties with countries from both the Eastern and Western Blocs. His diplomatic efforts made him a preferred communist leader in the eyes of the West, highlighted by engagements with Western leaders such as US President Richard Nixon, while also maintaining relationships with anti-Western leaders including Libya’s Gaddafi, Cuba’s Fidel Castro, and North Korea’s Kim Il-sung. His admiration for North Korea’s Juche ideology, emphasizing self-reliance, aligned with his national communist agenda. Western European National Bolshevik leader Jean-Francois Thiriart viewed Ceausescu favorably, even meeting with him.

Following the establishment of the more moderate Fascist Italian Social Movement (MSI) in 1946, which supported NATO and opposed communism, many radical syndicalist elements of Fascism were marginalized. This created an opportunity for the reestablished Italian Communist party to absorb these elements. The Communist party provided funding to the Pensiero Nazionale magazine, led by journalist and Fascist intellectual Stanis Runnias, with the aim of incorporating Runnias and his followers into the party. In 1950, Runnias called for both Communists and Fascists to join an armed uprising that ultimately did not take place. The cooperation between these groups ceased in the early 1950s when Runnias declined to renounce Fascism. Despite this, the publication associated with him continued until the 1970s. During the Cold War, Giorgio Pini, a Fascist politician and former Minister of Interior of the Italian Social Republic in 1944, tried to influence the MSI towards socialism. Failing to do so, Pini left the party and voiced opposition to its connections with pro-American governments such as Greece's military junta, South Africa during apartheid, and Salazar's regime in Portugal.

During Italy's tumultuous "Years of Lead" between 1969 and 1988, Franco Freda emerged as a pivotal figure in promoting Fascist and National Socialist terrorism, underpinned by an ideology that uniquely blended Maoism, admiration for Pol Pot and the Vietcong, and the philosophical influences of Julius Evola. Freda, who held the fighters of Palestine and Vietnam in high regard as true carriers of European values, developed an ideology dubbed "Nazi-Maoism," critiquing Western societies for succumbing to what he saw as Jewish capitalism. Despite debate over his connections, there were allegations of Freda and his groups receiving support from Italian intelligence (SISMI) and the CIA, ostensibly to counter Soviet influence in Italy through covert operations.

Freda was adamant about the necessity of overthrowing the liberal bourgeois order, a system he believed was imposed on Italy by the Americans post-World War II, representing a national defeat. Advocating for a "Strategy of Tension," Freda aimed to destabilize this order by inciting or attributing acts of terrorism to Communists, thereby accelerating societal chaos and paving the way for a Fascist takeover. This approach involved both infiltration into Communist groups to provoke terrorism and direct actions, such as terrorist attacks falsely attributed to Communists, to foster a climate of fear and disorder.

His ideological stance emphasized the use of extreme measures, including terrorism, to dismantle the existing political framework and incite anarchy, believing that only through such upheaval could the conditions for a Fascist coup be created. Freda's writings and actions advocated for an acceleration of conflict and chaos, reflecting a belief in the justifiability of any means to achieve the end of the current system's destruction, thus echoing themes found in James Mason's book Siege. By advocating for nationalization, land reforms, and the abolition of private property — drawing parallels with Stalin's collectivization policies — Freda's Nazi-Maoism sought a profound transformation of society away from capitalism towards a communal or state-owned model of property and production.

“In the domain of agricultural production, the dissolution of small and large landowners existing today, will be succeeded by the organic constitution of AGRICULTURAL COMBINES, territorially differentiated according to the requirements of production. The workers of the soil will constitute THE COMMITTEE OF MANAGEMENT OF THE COMBINE. This enterprise will name the COMMISSAR OF THE COMBINE, with analogous functions, to those of the commissar of the enterprise. 

In the field left free by that, which is today is defined as the “activity of commerce,” CENTERS OF CONSUMPTION will be formed, territorially articulated in the fashion of representing a link between each industrial and agricultural unit and the beneficiaries of these consumer products. The functioning of this organ will be made possible by the application of criteria analogous to those indicated for the structure of the industrial enterprise in the agricultural combine.”

— Franco Freda, The Disintegration of The System

Nazi-Maoism envisioned a society where private property was abolished, except for personal consumables, advocating for all property to become state-owned. His proposals included transforming industrial production by eliminating private enterprises in favor of state-controlled conglomerates, managed locally by worker committees, and overseen by appointed commissars accountable to regional management bodies. Freda believed that all material wealth should belong to the state to eliminate economic disparities caused by oligarchical control, aiming for a collective management system to replace private ownership. His unique stance also extended to the legal and corrective system, where he supported collective punishment, with forced labor as a primary penalty for most crimes, reserving capital punishment for the most serious offenses. This approach, along with the establishment of prison and labor camps, was reflective of the punitive measures in the Soviet Gulag, aligning with his views against capitalism and for state control over resources and corrective measures.

Freda's factions frequently engaged in confrontations with Communist entities like the Red Brigades and were known to attribute their own terrorist activities to Communist and anarchist groups. Some of Freda's associates, such as Stefano Delle Chiaie, later championed pro-American causes, supporting pro-NATO regimes including Pinochet's in Chile. Associate Alessandro Alibrandi even fought in the Lebanese civil war alongside the pro-American-Israeli Lebanese Phalange Militia and was treated in an Israeli hospital. Notwithstanding these ties to Western interests, Freda's group also purportedly received support from the KGB, Gaddafi's Libya, and China, reflecting the intricate and often contradictory alliances of the period. In the 2010s, Freda made a statement proclaiming, "Putin is a champion of the white race." He further supports Russia in its conflict with Ukraine while maintaining a staunchly anti-Anglo American and NATO stance. Additionally, it is noteworthy that Freda's closest collaborator, Claudio Mutti, holds pro-Russian and anti-Western views, has had meetings with Dugin, and maintains significant ties to the Chinese government.

Alexander Dugin with Claudio Mutti

Francis Parker Yockey was a prominent figure in the post-World War II fascist movements in Europe, notable for his sympathy towards the Soviet Union. Born in the United States, Yockey dedicated much of his life to political work and writing in Europe. He, along with a few other right-wing American intellectuals such as the conservative thinker George Santayana, held a favorable view of the USSR, both spending considerable time in Europe, particularly in Italy. Intellectuals like Jean-Francois Thiriart and Alain de Benoist also played significant roles in the pan-European nationalist movement, which eventually adopted a more pro-Soviet stance. Otto Strasser, noteworthy for his pro-Soviet views even before World War II, continued to support this perspective after the war, clashing with Oswald Mosley on the issue and founding a small political party in Germany, the German Social Union. Despite interactions with Thiriart, Strasser's influence waned after the war, and he died in 1975, with his party leaving little impact on German nationalist politics.

Thiriart and Benoist became central to this ideological shift, though neither initially supported the Soviets; Thiriart even promoted the idea of "Neither Washington nor Moscow." However, their stance evolved towards supporting the Soviet Union, especially engaging with pro-Soviet factions in Russia post-USSR. Thiriart's journey began in the 1930s as a Belgian socialist against fascism, eventually embracing a pro-National Socialist stance. After serving in the Belgian Waffen SS during the war and facing imprisonment for his actions, Thiriart critiqued National Socialism's policies post-war and viewed the World Wars as a destructive internal European conflict.

In the 1960s, Thiriart returned to political life, initially aligning with the Belgian Imperialist group Mouvement d'Action Civique (MAC), which sought to maintain Belgian control over Congo. However, as decolonization progressed and he observed Western Europe's increasing dependency on the US, Thiriart shifted his focus towards establishing European independence from US influence. In 1963, he founded Pan European Jeune Europe, aiming for a united Europe and seeing anti-imperialist movements as allies against the United States.

“[... ] we must tend to expel Americans from Europe at all costs.

The guardian power, the United States, has created in Europe habits of safety, ease and thread, renouncing personal initiative and finally subjection.

Atlanticism is an opium for political Europe...”

— Jean-Francois Thiriart, An Empire of Four Hundred Million Men, Europe

Thiriart established alliances with various liberation and revolutionary groups worldwide, including the National Liberation Front of Algeria, the Vietcong in Vietnam, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Black Panther Party, among others, contributing to his journal. He also developed personal relationships with leaders like Nicolae Ceausescu of Romania and Juan Peron of Argentina, with Peron even reading the Jeune Europe journal during his exile in Spain. Thiriart sought to build connections with Arab nationalist states and China, meeting with Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, aiming for Jeune Europe members to gain combat training and experience. This was to prepare them for a future where they could liberate Europe from US influence and negotiate autonomy from the Soviets for Eastern Europe. The engagement of Jeune Europe members in armed struggle was rare, but notable instances include Roger Coudroy, who died fighting with the Palestine Liberation Organization against the Israeli government, and Thiriart was rumored to have advised the PLO.

Jeune Europe attracted members from across Western Europe, with national chapters in countries like Belgium, Italy, Spain, Austria, and France, each numbering around 100 members. However, its publications reached thousands. The organization participated in strikes and street activism and maintained connections with figures from the European Third Position like Otto Strasser, Oswald Mosley, and Hans Ulrich Rudel. Despite associations with both communism and fascism, Thiriart denounced both, advocating for National Communitarianism instead. This ideology envisioned a unified, secular, Pan-European society with nationalized major industries and private small businesses.

Thiriart criticized communism for its internationalist and materialistic tendencies, while he saw fascism as too overly focused on narrow nationalism, not the broader concept of a united Europe. Although initially favoring a racially-based nationalism, Thiriart later endorsed the integration of Turks and Arabs in Europe, believing in the strength of a united continent to rival the US and USSR. However, disillusioned by the stagnation of his movement, Thiriart stepped back from politics in 1969.

After dedicating more than a decade to his career as an optometrist in Brussels, Thiriart sought to distance himself from former associates of Jeune Europe who encouraged him to return to politics. However, in 1981, his office was targeted in an attack, which compelled him to once again involve himself in the political arena. In an incomplete book titled The Euro-Soviet Empire From Vladivostok to Dublin, he put forth the following ideals:

"A Euro-Soviet empire which would stretch from Dublin to Vladivostok and would also need to expand to the south."

— Jean-Francois Thiriart quoted in The Russian Question: Nationalism, Modernization, and Post-Communist Russia by Wayne Allensworth

Thiriart championed the idea of European solidarity, aiming for a future where Europe and the Soviet Union would not be adversaries but strong allies. In 1984, this vision led him to co-found the National Bolshevik National European Communitarian party with Luc Michel, a Belgian advocate of National Bolshevism. Continuing his efforts, Thiriart led the European National Liberation Front in 1991, a successor to his earlier initiative, Jeune Europe, highlighting his unwavering commitment to his ideals. Believing deeply in the potential for a united Europe and Russia, he visited Russia in 1992 to meet with political figures opposed to Yeltsin's government, including Gennady Zyuganov and Alexander Dugin. Tragically, Thiriart's impactful journey was followed by his untimely death from a stroke shortly after returning.

Alexander Dugin with Jean Francis Thirart

Thirart was not alone in his National Bolshevik leanings during this era. Christian Bouchet, who had previously aligned with French Monarchism and Fascism, adopted National Bolshevik principles in the 1980s and 1990s. He headed various small French National Bolshevik and Third Positionist groups, including Unite Radicale and Nouvelle Resistance. Simultaneously, other significant personalities like Alain De Benoist, the mind behind the French New Right movement or GRECE, were active. De Benoist, who was writing in the same era as Thirart in the 1960s, similarly called for a Europe united and allied with the Third World against what he saw as liberal imperialism.

De Benoist, much like Thirart, supported a third way economic system, positioned between communism and capitalism, but consciously distanced himself from traditional third way ideologies such as Fascism and National Socialism. The primary difference between Thirart and De Benoist lay in their perspectives on ethnic identity: De Benoist advocated for the preservation of distinct ethnic identities within a unified Europe, whereas Thirart promoted their integration into a singular European people. Moreover, De Benoist is recognized for his pagan beliefs and critical stance on Christianity, contrasting with Thirart’s secularism and his affinity for revolutionary Jacobin ideals such as secularism. De Benoist's work also revolved around challenging liberal values such as democracy, capitalism, globalism, and human rights, though Thirart might have concurred with some of De Benoist's views.

In their early thought, both De Benoist and Thirart were skeptical of the Soviet Union, with De Benoist considering an alliance with China as a counterweight to both American and Soviet influence. Over time, however, De Benoist came to perceive American liberal ideology as a more significant threat than Soviet Russia. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, both Thirart and De Benoist engaged with Russian nationalist opponents of Boris Yeltsin. They had discussions with figures such as Alexander Dugin of the National Bolshevik party and Gennady Zyuganov of the Communist party of the Russian Federation.

“Some cannot resign themselves to the thought of one day having to wear the cap of the Red Army. Indeed, it is a dreadful prospect. However, we cannot bear the idea of having to spend what remains of our lives eating hamburgers in Brooklyn."

— Alain de Benoist, Orientations pour des années décisives

Anti-American French communist magazine cover of New Democracy

Globally, numerous nationalists and social conservatives found common ground with the Soviet Union or their own country's communist factions for a variety of reasons. During the Lebanese Civil War, which spanned from 1975 to 1991, secular Arab nationalist groups such as the Baath Party, Nasserists, and the Syrian Social Nationalist party allied with the Lebanese Communist party and other Marxist organizations like the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine. This alliance was formed to combat both the Israeli occupation and the Maronite-aligned forces within Lebanon. Islamic movements, including Hezbollah and Amal, also became part of this broad coalition, which ultimately succeeded in repelling Israeli forces by 2000.

Before this, in the 1967 Six-Day War, Arab nationalist regimes, notably Nasser's Egypt, aligned with Syria and Jordan to confront Israel backed by Soviet support. Nasser himself had ties to the Young Egypt party, which had fascist elements. This conflict ended disastrously for the Arab coalition, prompting the Soviet Union to cut off diplomatic relations with Israel. Interestingly, in Israel, a faction of the right-wing also harbored pro-Soviet views, notably the militant group Lehi. Initially inspired by Fascist Italy, Lehi, an Ultra Zionist organization, considered aligning with the Axis powers during World War II. However, as the war progressed, they shifted their stance to become pro-Soviet, hoping for acknowledgement from the USSR in their struggle against the British in Palestine. Despite the absence of Soviet recognition, Lehi was influential in the formation of the state of Israel, engaging in violent confrontations with Palestinians and participating in notorious events like the Deir Yassin massacre during the civil unrest in Mandatory Palestine in the late 1940s. Yitzhak Shamir, once a Lehi member, later ascended to the position of Israel's Prime Minister in the 1980s. Additionally, former Lehi member Nathan Yellin-Mor established the Semitic Action party, which pursued a vision of a confederation where Arabs and Jews could coexist—a stark departure from Lehi's initial aim of displacing Arabs. Semitic Action even backed the Arab Nationalist FLN during the Algerian War of Independence, aspiring to build a post-war alliance between the nations.

In Latin America, right-wing support for the Soviet Union was not widespread, but there were prominent figures who found common cause with Fidel Castro's Cuban revolution. Notably, Argentine fascist leader Juan Perón showed support for Castro, driven by the goal of freeing the continent from American hegemony. As a proponent of anti-imperialism, Che Guevara, a comrade and ally of Castro, also supported Perón's stance and denounced the 1952 coup that ousted Perón. While Perón was in exile in Francisco Franco's Spain, he met with Che Guevara and advised against his planned guerrilla campaign in Bolivia, anticipating the risks involved. Tragically, Perón's apprehensions were validated when Che Guevara was captured and killed by the Bolivian army in 1967. In Argentina, Perón’s ideologies found favor among various Marxist groups, including the Peronist Armed Forces and the Montoneros guerrilla organization.

In Spain, certain factions within the Spanish Falange, disillusioned with Franco's deviation from the original tenets professed by their founder Jose Antonio, sought alliances with communist opposition. One such faction was led by Dionisio Ridruejo Jimenez, a member of Generation 36, a collective of writers and artists active during the Spanish Civil War. Jimenez was also a lyricist for the Falangist anthem "Cara al Sol." Jimenez, originally a propagandist for the nationalist cause during the war, increasingly clashed with the regime's more conservative monarchist and military elements. He faced suppression for promoting Catalan language nationalism, which was counter to the nationalist generals' intentions. His support for Nazi Germany during World War II led to his ouster from the Propaganda Directorate by Franco's administration in 1941. Afterward, he served in the Blue Division, a group of Spanish volunteers that fought alongside Germany, from 1941 to 1942.

By 1955, Jimenez had become disenchanted with Franco's rule and formed a club of Authentic Falangists, communists, and democrats to oppose the dictatorship. His anti-Franco activities resulted in a brief imprisonment in 1957. Over time, Jimenez's views evolved towards social democracy, and in 1960, he took asylum in Argentina. He returned to Spain in 1975 and died later on. His legacy of anti-Franco Authentic Falangism persists, influencing contemporary groups such as the Spanish political party, Auténtica. Gustavo Morales, a Falangist dissident, engaged with a rebellious student organization known as the Front of Student Unionist. After Spain transitioned back to democracy in 1978, Morales, as a representative in the Spanish Delegation, attended the World Festival of Youth and Students in Cuba, accompanied by fellow Falangists.

Gustavo Morales, along with other dissident Falangists, embarked on a journey to Cuba aboard the Soviet Cruiser Leonid Sobinov

“Morales affirms that the treatment with Fidel went beyond cordiality and that the dictator, 'with an overwhelming personality, you like him, he takes you wherever he wants', he stopped them as he passed and said: ‘Comrades, I know what you are up to'. Then he told them something about the library of the House of the Heroic Guerrilla Fighter and its relation to certain readings. Morales headed there before setting sail back to Spain and found ‘the complete works of José Antonio, the cheap edition, the one with José Antonio's death mask on the cover, I open it and put, from Antonio de Olano to his friend Fidel Castro, September 1958, and the seal of the José Antonio Circles'.”

— Miguel Madueño Álvarez, Luis Velasco Martínez, and José Manuel Azcona, Canamisas azules en Hispanoamérica (1936-1978) Organización política y prosopografía del falangismo en Ultrama

At the festival, they had the chance to meet with Fidel Castro and welcomed him with a Roman Salute. During their conversation, Castro suggested that Morales visit the Che Guevara Museum Library. It was there that Morales discovered a copy of José Antonio Primo De Rivera's Complete Works, which belonged to Castro himself. This discovery led Morales to believe that Castro was a pragmatic nationalist at heart, rather than a committed communist. He surmised that Castro embraced communism primarily as a strategic choice to gain Soviet backing and to counter the long-standing American dominance in Cuban affairs. Although Morales did not share the Cuban government's stance on religion, he held a deep respect for Castro and later expressed sorrow over his death. Returning to Spain, Morales continued to champion the philosophies of José Antonio and Ledesma, founding several organizations in the 1990s to advance Falangist principles.

The Soviet Union’s Collapse and The New Russian National Bolshevism 

Under Gorbachev's leadership, the Soviet republics began to demand more autonomy, embracing the spirit of liberalization. Yet, the central authorities in Moscow were reluctant to relinquish their centralized power as the 1980s drew to a close. In an effort to maintain their grip on the Union, Soviet officials ordered military interventions to quell dissent in the Baltic states of Latvia and Lithuania. Despite these forceful measures, the disintegration of the Soviet bloc seemed unavoidable. The constituent Soviet republics could no longer maintain a facade of unity, and the once-touted ideal of the "Friendship of The Peoples" unraveled, exposing its superficiality. The cohesion of the Soviet Union had long rested on the coercive force wielded by the communist regime, which maintained order through intimidation and the suppression of those who dared to challenge the status quo or advocate for the rights of minorities.

The consequences of Gorbachev's actions were:

• The gold reserves experienced a significant decrease, plummeting from 2,500 tons to a mere 240 tons.

• The external debt of the USSR skyrocketed from 31.3 billion to a staggering 70.3 billion.

• The GDP experienced a severe decline of 50%.

• Life expectancy witnessed a distressing decrease of 10 years.

• Approximately 40% of the population found themselves living in poverty.

• The country faced a staggering death toll of 7.7 million.

• The number of factories was significantly reduced from 30,000 to a mere 5,000 units.

• The vital sectors of healthcare, science, and education suffered extensive destruction.

• There was an alarming prevalence of epidemic levels of abortion, drug use, alcoholism, and AIDS/HIV.

During the final stages of the Soviet Union's existence, the Caucasus republics became centers of intense nationalistic conflicts. Notably, the Nagorno Karabakh region and Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan, witnessed vicious anti-Armenian pogroms that led to significant violence and fatalities. In a parallel situation, Georgia was the scene of fierce fighting between Georgians and the Abkhazian minority, heightening ethnic strife in the area. These clashes were partly a result of Mikhail Gorbachev's policy of liberalization, which, though well-intended, unintentionally empowered nationalist movements and amplified ethnic tensions across the Union. Moreover, Gorbachev's reforms had far-reaching international effects. The 1989 revolutions that toppled communist governments throughout the countries of the Warsaw Pact signaled the fall of Soviet-backed socialist states. This domino effect of democratization and the eruption of revolutionary fervor exerted increasing pressure on Gorbachev to respond to calls for more democracy and self-governance from within the Soviet republics. The disintegration of Eastern European socialist governments acted as a driving force for stronger demands for independence and political change within the Soviet Union itself. With nationalist fervor on the rise and ethnic conflicts intensifying, Gorbachev stood at a crossroads in Soviet history. The push for expanded democratic rights and sovereignty from the Union's republics reached its zenith, marking a critical moment that would shape the fate of the Soviet Union.

Covering the failed 1991 coup that doomed the USSR

In 1991, the Soviet Union was rocked by the audacious August Coup, where a group known as the Gang of Eight—comprising key figures within the Soviet hierarchy—made a bold move to depose Mikhail Gorbachev. This clique of communist diehards and military bigwigs included the likes of Gennady Yanayev, the Vice President, Prime Minister Valentin Pavlov, Defense Minister Dmitry Yazov, Interior Minister Boris Pugo, Oleg Baklanov, the second-in-command of the Defense Council, Vasily Starodubtsev, head of the Union of Collective Farms, high-ranking Communist party official Alexander Tizyakov, and Anatoly Lukyanov, the Supreme Soviet Chairman.

Bonded by their resistance to the liberalizing reforms of Gorbachev, these conspirators aimed to reverse the tide of change and reinstate the preeminence of the central Soviet authority. Their plan was to take the reins of power, put a stop to the reform process, and reaffirm Moscow's control. However, the coup was doomed to fail due to a variety of decisive elements. The united front of pro-democracy advocates, widespread public opposition, steadfastness within key institutions, and global backlash all contributed to foiling the coup, contributing to the further destabilization of the Soviet government and accelerating the Union's disintegration.

Post-coup, the Soviet Union witnessed a swift series of events that led to its demise. Various republics took advantage of the chaos to declare independence, precipitating the Soviet Union's fragmentation. Under intense strain, Gorbachev resigned on December 25th, handing over the reins of leadership—including the nuclear codes—to Boris Yeltsin, who would lead the Russian Federation until 1999. After the Soviet Union's collapse, a new struggle for power emerged in Russia between the legislature and the newly elected president, Boris Yeltsin, a situation complicated by rampant hyperinflation, plummeting living standards, and a contentious push towards economic liberalization that stripped away vital social protections. Concurrently, separatist movements within the Russian Federation grew stronger. The pervasive corruption linked to extensive privatization efforts and the "shock therapy" economic reforms backed by the United States exacerbated the turmoil.

“President Yeltsin delivered the first big shock to the Russian economy when he lifted price controls in December 1991. As the Soviet economy collapsed, however, the policy ended up unleashing hyperinflation. By 1994, consumer prices in Russia would skyrocket to almost 2000 times what they had been in 1990. That candy bar that had cost $1 now cost $2000. Hyperinflation devastated ordinary Russians. Meanwhile, Chubais was tasked with overseeing mass privatization. That entailed transforming a nation whose almost entire economy consisted of state-controlled industries — manufacturing plants, oil refineries, mines, media outlets, biscuit factories, you name it — into private enterprises. It was, to date, surely the biggest transfer of state assets to private owners in world history. Privatization was conducted in two waves. The first wave, which began in October 1992, had at least the veneer of being a fair and open process. Russia issued 148 million "privatization checks," or vouchers, to Russian citizens. These vouchers could be freely sold or traded. They could then be used to buy shares of state enterprises going private at public auctions around the nation. It was like the former Soviet Union was holding the world's largest garage sale and vouchers were the tickets to shop. The people on their way to becoming Russia's first class of oligarchs scoured the nation, trying to buy as many vouchers as they could. Many of the oligarchs had come from nothing. They had initially gotten rich — but not quite buy-superyachts rich just yet — by hustling in the black market or through legitimate businesses when the Soviet Union first allowed private entrepreneurship in the late 1980s. For example, Roman Abramovich made his first pot of money selling rubber ducks and other random objects to Russians out of his Moscow apartment (seriously). He was also a mechanic. By the time privatization began, many soon-to-be oligarchs owned banks and had enough money to buy lots of vouchers. Sponsor Message The oligarchs went on a buying spree, purchasing hundreds of thousands of vouchers, each of which were worth 10,000 rubles, or about $40 or less back in the 1990s. Average Russians, who were struggling during hyperinflation, were often eager to sell. After amassing vouchers, the oligarchs — both come-up-from-nothing hustlers and former Soviet government insiders — used them at auctions to buy up stocks in newly private companies. By all accounts, many of these enterprises were shockingly undervalued — and those who were able to get large chunks of lucrative enterprises became fabulously wealthy in a very short period of time. Between 1992 and 1994, about 15,000 state-run enterprises went private under the program. By 1994, when the voucher program ended, around 70 percent of the Russian economy had been privatized. But some of the biggest, most valuable industries remained in the government's hands. Chubais had plans to privatize these state enterprises and raise much needed funds for the government by selling them off for cash to the highest bidder in legitimate auctions. However, politics got in the way of the increasingly unpopular privatization drive — and even threatened to reverse it. That's when the Yeltsin administration resorted to a much shadier form of privatization.”

— Greg Rosalsky, How 'Shock Therapy' Created Russian Oligarchs and Paved The Path For Putin

The economic disaster, coupled with the rise of a capitalist oligarchy and a sense of national humiliation, united various factions, including Communists, Nationalists, and Monarchists, against the liberal state. As Eduard Limonov aptly described, “There’s no longer any left or right. There’s the system and the enemies of the system.”

In September 1993, President Boris Yeltsin took the controversial step of bypassing the constitution to dissolve the legislature and announced new elections. He rationalized this move by referencing a referendum in which over 60% of Russian voters supported his recent economic measures. Vice President Alexander Rutskoy sharply criticized these measures as "economic genocide" and, following Yeltsin's dissolution of the parliament, the legislature impeached Yeltsin and proclaimed Rutskoy the interim president. This precipitated large-scale demonstrations in Moscow, drawing tens of thousands rallying behind the parliament and leading to confrontations with Yeltsin's backers. The ensuing violence claimed over 100 lives and left many injured.

The parliament of that time was a melting pot of conflicting ideologies, hosting groups such as anti-liberal populists, communists, nationalists, feminists, anarchists, and non-affiliated independents. With independents holding around 28% of the seats and the lackluster performance of parties aligned with the Kremlin, the parliament struggled to set a definitive course of action, casting uncertainty on the trajectory of a post-Soviet, liberal-capitalist Russia. It's notable that this era saw the emergence of non-communist parties, starting in 1991.

In the face of the widespread opposition to Yeltsin's rule, there was a movement towards unity among his detractors, culminating in the creation of the National Salvation Front. This alliance united the most vehement critics of Yeltsin, encompassing a spectrum of groups from Fascists and National Bolsheviks to Anarchists, Monarchists, and Communists. The formation of the National Salvation Front was a response to pervasive disillusionment with Russia's fall from superpower status to a state struggling with disarray and persistent crises.

The front maintained close ties with a parliamentary bloc called Russian Unity. Aleksandr Prokhanov, the editor-in-chief of Dyen, the National Salvation Front's official publication, served as the co-chairman of the National Salvation Front. Dyen published excerpts from The Protocols of The Elders of Zion and expressed support for fascist groups in the West. Another notable figure involved in the National Salvation Front was Albert Makashov, a former Major General in the Red Army who led the armed wing of the group during the 1993 revolution. Alexander Dugin, who contributed to and assisted in editing Dyen, as well as Eduard Limonov, a former Russian exile with connections to punk and leftist circles in the United States, also participated in the National Salvation Front. Limonov had met Alain de Benoist, a philosopher associated with the European New Right, in Paris and had been involved in the Yugoslav war on the side of Radovan Karadzic before returning to Russia and joining the red-brown opposition against Yeltsin. Furthermore, Dugin had the opportunity to meet and interview Léon Degrelle, a former leader of the Waffen SS and the Belgian Rexist movement, during this period.

Alexander Dugin and Léon Degrelle

A picture of an interview of Leon called the Last Volksfuhrer, held by Dugin in 1993 with the magazine Elements.

National Salvation Front propaganda and flag

In 1991, Eduard Limonov, a Soviet émigré and literary dissident, returned to Russia and in 1994, went on to form the National Bolshevik party (NBP). It’s crucial to note that the NBP was officially established not as a formal party but as a political organization. Co-created with Alexander Dugin, and including influential musicians Yegor Letov and Sergey Kuryokhin, the NBP drew in a diverse array of members and formed coalitions reminiscent of the National Salvation Front. Nonetheless, the NBP adhered to a more cohesive ideological stance, merging elements of nationalism, Marxism (omitting Feuerbach's influence, as articulated by Dugin), and ideologies from the Conservative Revolution, such as Eurasianism, to create a unique strain of National Bolshevism. Dugin eventually parted ways with the NBP due to ideological differences and personal disputes with other members. Sergey Kuryokhin promoted the concept of "White Communism," much like his intellectual forerunner Nikolai Ustryalov, proposing it as a solution for Russia's revival. In contrast, Limonov, diverging from Dugin, favored an anarchist approach combined with elements of nationalism and socialism, a stance that resonated with Letov's own political views.

In the words of Marlene Laruelle:

“The party is inspired by so-called third-way ideas: it asserts that national revolution and social revolution emanate from one and the same principle, and that the extremes, left and right, should join forces to form a common front in the name of a “general principle of uprising.” The development of an avant-gardist National Bolshevik doctrine owes much to the theoretician Alexander Dugin. Basing himself on anarchism and terrorism, Dugin developed the idea of forming an alliance between the revolutionary radicalism of the left and the right, and proffered an exalted romantic vision of action and death…The movement claimed that the key solution was to form a new Great Imperial Russia: it accordingly managed to gain the attention of authorities in Latvia and the Ukraine, who were anxious about its members’ activities on their territories, and in Kazakhstan it fomented attempted “uprisings” alongside Cossack circles.”

— Marlene Laruelle, Russian Nationalism Imaginaries, Doctrines, and Political Battlefields

Photos of the 1990s National Bolshevik Party

National Bolsheviks protesting the opening of the first very first McDonald's in St. Petersburg in 1996

Within the National Salvation Front, the NBP emerged as a key player and became influential in Russia's counter-culture movement. Gennady Zyuganov, also a prominent figure in the Front, had dialogues with Alain de Benoist and Jean Francois Thiriart, the latter being a former Waffen SS member who later embraced National Bolshevism. Zyuganov later founded the Communist party of the Russian Federation (KPRF), which, despite its communist moniker, adopted nationalist and conservative stances. The KPRF has taken a stand against "cosmopolitanism," disseminated conspiracy theories regarding Zionist ambitions for worldwide control, and advocated for the prohibition of Jewish and Freemason groups in Russia.

In 1993, following Yeltsin's decision to disband the Russian parliament, the National Salvation Front attempted to instigate a shadow government in opposition to Yeltsin during the political crisis that unfolded. This action precipitated a confrontation between Yeltsin's government and the red-brown coalition, which counted the Russian National Unity (a fascist organization) among its ranks, at the Russian White House. In the end, Yeltsin commanded military forces to seize the Russian White House, an event that led to casualties and injuries among the red-brown coalition and resulted in the detention of several opposition figures.

AMV edits of the chaos in Russia

Various photos of the chaos in Russia

Martin A. Lee provides a comprehensive and detailed explanation of this:

“In September 1993, Yelt­sin summarily disbanded the Russian parliament. This presidential decree set the stage for the bloody confrontation between Yeltsin loyalists and the so-called “patriotic forces” who gathered at the Russian White House, where the parliament normally functioned.

Sensing that the long-awaited civil war was about to begin, Limo­nov and his supporters flocked to the parliament building. They were joined by thousands of Red-Brown extremists, including Barkashov’s black-shirted storm troopers who brought their weapons with them, expecting a fight. As tensions escalated, the European Liberation Front dispatched several people to Moscow to under­ score their solidarity with the Russian opposition. Michel Schneider, a French neofascist representing the ELF (who had previously ac­companied Thiriart on a trip to Moscow), was among those injured in the White House when Yeltsin finally convinced the army to send in the tanks in early October.

Hundreds were killed during the assault and many more were wounded. Limonov and several opposition leaders were thrown in jail. But Barkashov and dozens of armed resisters escaped through a network of underground tunnels after putting up a fierce fight. A few weeks later, Barkashov was shot by an unknown assailant from a moving car. Security officials arrested Russia’s top neo-Nazi as he lay recovering in a hospital bed. He, too, was headed for prison.”

— Martin A. Lee, The Beast Reawakens

After the suppression of Dyen and similar opposition publications, Yeltsin strengthened his grasp on power through constitutional amendments that significantly bolstered the president's powers, subsequently calling for fresh elections. In a surprising turn of events, the KPRF gained 32 seats in the State Duma, while the inaptly named Liberal Democratic party of Russia, headed by the staunchly fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, won 59 seats. Zhirinovsky, who had earlier been introduced by Eduard Limonov to former Nazi collaborator Jean-Marie Le Pen during a trip to Paris in 1992, received an endorsement from Le Pen for his presidential campaign. The election outcomes were interpreted as a rebuke of Yeltsin's leadership.

In February 1994, the Duma, now under the control of Yeltsin's adversaries, passed an amnesty for political prisoners from Yeltsin's tenure. Dyen reemerged as Zavtra, Aleksandr Barkashov openly paraded in Moscow, and Limonov launched his own publication, Limonka. As Russia's economic and social fabric began to fray, Yeltsin resorted to populist and increasingly xenophobic rhetoric, targeting ethnic minorities, especially in the mid-1990s. Yeltsin's decision to launch a military campaign in Chechnya in 1994 led to the fragmentation of the National Salvation Front, with key figures condemning the conflict. Nonetheless, Zhirinovsky, Limonov, and Barkashov endorsed Yeltsin's approach and the ensuing violence in Chechnya. Limonov later distanced himself from Zhirinovsky after the latter supported Yeltsin in 1998. Furthermore, Limonov criticized Barkashov's blatant nazism, arguing that such extremism was impractical due to the deep scars left by Nazi crimes and the heavy casualties sustained by the Soviet Union during the Second World War. Limonov believed that fascism could only be introduced in Russia via subtler tactics. In 1995, Barkashov attempted to reinvent himself as a "serious politician" to shed the Nazi image, while Limonov's National Bolshevik Front maintained collaborative ties with Barkashov's Russian National Unity (RNU). By 1998, the RNU had penetrated 64 of Russia's 89 regions and was operating boot camps indoctrinating youngsters with fascist doctrines. They found surprising leniency and even cooperation from various local and regional authorities.

Gennady Zyuganov, the leader of the KPRF, ran against Yeltsin in the 1996 presidential elections. Zyuganov garnered backing from a spectrum of the Russian Right, including conservative personalities like Sergey Baburin and his All Russian People Union. However, Zyuganov's campaign faced formidable obstacles, encountering resistance from Russian oligarchs, foreign figures like George Soros, and the American government, which allegedly employed tactics including media smears, vote manipulation, intimidation, and infusing over $200 million into Yeltsin's campaign. Ruslan Khasbulatov, the former chairman of Russia's parliament, contends that Yeltsin was substantially influenced by the CIA during his presidency. Khasbulatov suggests that Yeltsin's inner circle included numerous Americans and insinuates that Washington had a hand in Yeltsin's 1996 electoral victory. He alleges that around a hundred CIA operatives were engaged in guiding Yeltsin's choices and offering counsel. Khasbulatov also points to Yeltsin's habit of sending security officials and department heads to the U.S. for evaluation and guidance. Similar claims have been made by Alexander Rutskoy, the former vice president of Russia, who asserts that the CIA was involved in the execution of Yeltsin's market reforms.

Russian Communists and Monarchists protesting against Yeltsin

Martin A. Lee drew parallels between the situation in Russia at the time and the Weimar Republic, suggesting that the unstable conditions contributed to the ascent of Vladimir Putin, a former KGB operative who evolved into a conservative authoritarian leader. Putin's harsh response to the Chechen conflict earned him the role of acting president, appointed by Yeltsin. Concurrently, there was a schism within the National Bolshevik party, leading to Eduard Limonov's separation from his colleague Alexander Dugin in the spring of 1998. In the 2000s, Limonov positioned himself against Putin and aligned with liberal icon Garry Kasparov's United Civil Front. Together, they played instrumental roles in orchestrating the anti-Putin demonstrations called the Dissenters' March. Eventually, the National Bolshevik party was outlawed, and Limonov emerged as a key figure in The Other Russia, an opposition bloc co-led with Kasparov that united diverse factions, including National Bolsheviks, nationalists, liberals, social democrats, and socialists.

Despite the dissolution of the National Salvation Front and Yeltsin's departure, the enduring legacy of these alliances and mutual respect among various groups and ideologies is evident, with some actively involved in the ongoing conflict between Russia and Ukraine. In contemporary Russian politics, several significant parties exhibit strands of nationalism and express skepticism towards free markets and Western influence. Moreover, many of the red-brown alliance's leaders and members continue to be influential today.

Alexander Barkashov, the head of the National Socialist group RNU, reached the height of his influence in the late 1990s, though his prominence waned in the 2000s. Nonetheless, his organization remains one of Russia's largest neo-Nazi groups and has contributed fighters to the conflict in Donbass. In October 1993, Barkashov, together with ex-Soviet General Vladislav Achalov, established the Union of the Defenders of Russia to commemorate those who resisted the government during the constitutional crisis. Several neo-Nazi factions have direct ties to this entity, including the Rusich Battalion, Russian Imperial Movement, and the Wagner Group, which function as a volunteer militias/mercenary force, providing support to Russian military operations.

Eduard Limonov and his National Bolshevik party faced diminishing influence, internal rifts, and prohibition, akin to Barkashov's experience. Nevertheless, Limonov formed a new political entity, The Other Russia party, which has been active in various demonstrations across Russia and has sent combatants to Donbass. Limonov regained a measure of his past notoriety through media appearances, including interviews and debates on Russian television in the mid to late 2010s. Despite being a contentious figure, he maintained a presence in the public eye until his passing in March 2020..

Alexander Dugin has emerged as a prominent anti-liberal intellectual both inside and outside of Russia. He has also articulated how National Bolshevism was an initial attempt to synthesize desirable elements of both communism and fascism into an ideological opposition against liberalism. However, Dugin recognizes that this attempt did not yield the desired results and considers it "still too modernist." Instead, Dugin has developed the "4th Political Theory" as a means to transcend previous ideologies and establish an authentic traditionalist worldview. This revision aligns with the Conservative Revolutionary movement.

Dugin's aim is to establish a new framework for political action through what he calls Neo-Eurasianism. It's important to distinguish between two aspects of Alexander Dugin's philosophy: Neo-Eurasianism and the Fourth Political Theory. The Fourth Political Theory represents his meta-political perspective on how politics should be approached. Neo-Eurasianism, on the other hand, is Dugin's specific ideology that applies the Fourth Political Theory to Russia, envisioning a new Eurasian empire or "great space" with Russia at its center.

“Eurasia means not succumbing to the West’s claims to universality, rejecting its hegemony, and insisting that no one has a monopoly on truth, especially not the West. Eurasia is the possibility for peoples and civilizations to follow their own path and, if the logic of the path demands such, not only a non-Western one, but even an anti-Western path. This is Eurasia.”

— Alexander Dugin, Eurasia: A Special Worldview

In addition to Carl Schmitt, it is worth noting the similarities between Dugin and French fascist Pierre Drieu la Rochelle. Both thinkers advocated for transcending nationalism in favor of pursuing a larger empire or continentalism. Rochelle viewed nationalism as a necessary step in the evolution of fascism, while Dugin downplays its importance, likely due to Russia's historical status as an empire. Rochelle described his ideal empires as a union of neighboring countries forming a single civilizational entity, which bears resemblance to the old Soviet model. Dugin draws inspiration from various sources, but there are certainly elements of Rochelle in his thinking. Rochelle praised Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin for their creation of vast empires, a sentiment that aligns with another French fascist, Robert Brasillach, who prophesied: "I see how in the East, in Russia, fascism is rising—a fascism borderless and red." Dugin references this quote in his work Fascism — Borderless and Red to justify the concept of a new Eurasian Russian Empire.

Dugin posing next to a picture of Pierre Drieu la Rochelle

Dugin's call for a "red and unbound fascism" signifies his adaptation of his ideology as an aggressively open system, incorporating elements from various points on the political spectrum to combat its ultimate enemy, the United States and ideological liberalism. This indicates that the Fourth Political Theory, along with Dugin's neo-Eurasianism, aims to establish a new foundation for Russian philosophy, as Russia is envisioned as the center of a distinct civilizational sphere or new empire. For many Russian nationalists navigating increasingly difficult circumstances, Vladimir Putin, a former KGB operative backed by Russian oligarchs, emerged as an unexpected ally.

Before the Soviet Union's dissolution, Putin was a KGB officer stationed in East Germany. There are allegations, as historian Mark Felton posits, that he supported the West German militant group, the Red Army Faction, by providing them with safe havens and may have even served as the handler for the German National Socialist, Rainer Sonntag. The goal behind such KGB operations, including potential involvement by Putin, would have been to sow discord in West Germany, mirroring the United States' strategy of backing dissident movements in the Eastern Bloc to cause destabilization. Additionally, Putin carried out espionage in West Germany and recruited for the KGB in East Germany. At the time of the Eastern Bloc's collapse in 1989, Putin was in East Germany, actively involved in securing and destroying sensitive KGB documents to prevent them from being acquired by the West.

Contrary to what some might expect, Putin was not a hardline communist; he supported reformist leader Mikhail Gorbachev and resigned from the KGB during the 1991 coup attempt. The Soviet Union's fall was regarded by Putin as a catastrophic loss for Russia, diminishing its global standing and internal cohesion. Nevertheless, Putin realized that a Soviet revival was impractical and critiqued foundational tenets of Leninism, such as the rights given to Soviet republics, which he saw as inherently problematic. Aligned with Stalin's vision, Putin believed in a centralized Soviet Union with Russia at its core, and he also disapproved of the Soviet Union's stance against religion. Putin's views align with post-Soviet right-wing thinking, appreciating the significance of the Soviet era but also recognizing its critical shortcomings and accepting that its restoration was not feasible.

Post-Soviet, Putin became a foreign relations advisor to the Mayor of St. Petersburg and helped establish the local division of the liberal conservative party, Our Home Russia, in 1995. By 1997, he had relocated to Moscow, where Boris Yeltsin and influential oligarchs like Boris Berezovsky appointed him to the Presidential Staff, eyeing him as Yeltsin's successor. After some initial reluctance, Putin accepted the role. Following Yeltsin's resignation in 1999, Putin assumed the presidency and secured his position through the 2000 election. Contrary to the oligarchs' expectations of a Yeltsin-like figure, Putin took a different path.

In his first presidential term, Putin took legal action against numerous oligarchs on charges of corruption and tax evasion, leading to arrests and expatriates, like Boris Berezovsky, fleeing to Western Europe. Though starting as a liberal conservative, Putin moved towards nationalizing Russia's oil industry, previously under oligarchic control. Gradually, his ideology evolved towards national conservatism. He tackled the destabilizing Chechen insurgency, reinforcing his grip on power. Putin sustained the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and founded the Eurasian Economic Union in 2015. He championed separatist movements in Georgia and Ukraine to counteract Western expansion and fostered ties with nations sharing an illiberal stance, including China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Belarus, Nicaragua, among others. When Russia initiated military actions in Ukraine in 2022, Putin advocated for a worldwide coalition of conservative and socialist forces to confront Western capitalism, which he views as a socio-economic threat to Russia and the developing world.

After Putin made changes and distanced himself from US and liberal influences, some individuals on the pro-Soviet right, such as Alexander Dugin, became supporters of Putin and developed their own ideologies, such as the Fourth Political Theory. Others, like Gennady Zyuganov, Sergey Baburin, and Albert Makashov, opposed Putin for not going far enough in dismantling capitalism and liberalism but still supported him on certain issues, such as the ban on LGBT propaganda and military intervention in Ukraine. The Communist party of the Russian Federation, the second-largest party in Russia, maintained a coalition called the National Patriotic Forces of Russia, which included groups like Left Front, A Just Russia, and Great Russia. The Communist party also collaborated with the Orthodox Church and upheld nationalist and social conservative positions.

Eduard Limonov and his NBP consistently resisted Putin's leadership. The NBP transitioned from forming alliances with rightist factions to collaborating with leftist and liberal organizations. Limonov advocated for the dismantling of the existing system and the introduction of direct democracy in Russia. The party was known for bold acts such as storming Russian government premises and attempting to assert control in regions of Kazakhstan, actions which ultimately led to its prohibition in 2007. Following this, Limonov established The Other Russia, which fused right-wing and left-wing principles, persisting in its opposition to Putin but occasionally endorsing his policies, particularly on the conflict in Ukraine. The group even created their own battalion, the Interbrigades, to participate in the Ukrainian conflict. After Limonov's death in 2020, the movement continued under the banner of The Other Russia of E. V Limonov, in tribute to its founder. Sergey Baburin later founded the Rodina party, which, despite being the sixth-largest party in Russia, has distanced itself from its initial red-brown ideology and supports the country's decommunization process. Rodina also collaborates with Putin's ruling United Russia party. Baburin resurrected his former party, the All Russian People Union, and ran for president in 2018, though he did not succeed against Putin.

Alexander Barkashov, former head of the now defunct RNU, remains a key figure in Russian nationalist circles. Although RNU has disbanded and fragmented, its former members continue to be active, with some forming a combat group in Ukraine. Pavel Gubarev, an ex-RNU affiliate, became the inaugural head of the Russian separatist Donetsk People's Republic. While Gubarev maintains ties with Barkashov and other RNU offshoots, his political stance has evolved towards a center-left nationalism. Barkashov also has affiliations with the Russian Orthodox Army, a militant group of Russian separatists in Ukraine.

Despite the disbandment of the National Salvation Front in 1993, its affiliates’ influence within Russian politics remains. Contemporary Russian political entities often merge anti-capitalist sentiments, social conservatism, and nationalism. Notably, adherents of these ideologies have come together to fight in Ukraine against Western-backed forces. This coalition, which Dugin terms an "All-Russian Ideology," integrates concepts from both historical and contemporary sources, drawing inspiration from Russia's imperial and Soviet legacies.

“It is growing crystal-clear that National Bolshevism is not only a metaphysical verity, but has also been vindicated by its founders’ absolute historical prescience. The only political discourse of the 1920s and 30s that has maintained relevance to this day is to be found in the texts of the Russian Eurasianists and the German ‘Left’ Revolutionary Conservatives. National Bolshevism is the last refuge of the ‘enemies of the open society’ if these latter wish not to insist upon their obsolete, historically inadequate, and utterly ineffective doctrines. If ‘far-leftists’ refuse to be mere appendages of an opportunistic and prostitute social-democracy, if ‘far-rightists’ want to avoid serving as a breeding ground for the extremist wing of the liberal repression apparatus — they are left with only one way out: National Bolshevism.”

— Alexander Dugin, Templars of The Proletariat