>>7957385>>7957386The adjustment that communism has made since the early twentieth century is an adjustment toward fascism. There is more fascism in China or Cuba than there is in some Thiel-funded Javascript programmer who calls himself a neoreactionary, and I don't think Marxists understand the significance of that fact-- fascism is a natural development or refinement of the theory that people inevitably arrive at, even if it looks different depending on their particular national condition.
Also the problem I have with communism in this context is that it does risk killing the race-soul and that for many communists that's even a desirable outcome. If I believed peoples were completely commensurate and that the nation were unimportant, I would be a communist, but all experience tells us that that's not the case. So is it better than neoliberalism, would I rather see communism than what we have now? Sure, but do we have to go through the communism->fascism transition every single time? Why don't we just skip to the end?
Also re: Lebensraum and Manifest Destiny: I'd argue that that kind of principle is manifested by all great powers. Italy and Japan and the Soviet Union and China and modern Judeo-America have/had ideologies that seek the construction of an empire or great space, not just Old America and NS Germany. Is a world of racial-civilizational Grossraeume really worse or more terrible or more bloody than the world liberal empire that we're barreling toward now? I really think it's not, that it even tends toward a more peaceful and happier world than what we got.
Fascism talks big and waves its guns around but when you grasp its heart, it's the same love for the world that I think exists at the heart of all socialism. Liberalism preaches love and universal brotherhood but at its core is a really astounding hatred and resentment and drive toward insensible homogeneity. Marxism, in my eyes, almost is a transitional stage between them.
