Dialogical Journal of Progressive Nationalism

This page is an experiment in finding a new way of communication, based on an older one which faded out several generations ago, but with the internet era, should - should - be possible to breath new life into.

The idea is to dedicate an entire page which is more of the nature of a critical, questioning political journal rather than a 'forum'.  I think this would make any forum into something does not exist anywhere at the moment.  This is what I call a 'dialogical journal'.  A dialogical journal would be a  journal in that people would be expected to contribute serious and well-written essays, however short.  But it would be a dialogical journal in that readers or other writers would also be encouraged and expected to write essays in response - and not just very short 'comments'. 

Alternatively, this page could be utilised to combine the submission of both links to published articles or essays  - and promotes essay length responses or reflections on both? e

This page is not intended to be used in the way that Facebook is.  My problem with FB is that whenever I post a serious essay, or even just a link to a media article, the responses are always no more than mere written soundbites. My problem with journals - like Telos, or the old New Left Review - which did serve a very valuable purpose, is that, like most journals, even today's on-line scientific journals, they did not offer the opportunity for responses to essays which themselves took the form of essays - and not mere off-hand 'comments' or 'letters to the editor'.  

At Lenin's time, things were different. Like Marx, he wrote countless essays in direct dialogical response to those of others. With the internet this would again be possible, but only in the form of what I call a serious 'dialogical journal' i.e. an on-line journal which allows facilitates an in-depth dialogue between writers and readers of articles.

I would love for SWPE members, supporters, readers of the site, people with opposing views - anyone, in fact who wishes to contribute to what is intended to become in some form, a 'Journal of Progressive Nationalism'.

Peter Wilberg



So how will this work?

Using the comments box below, please submit a mini-essay which is directly related to the subject above.  Your comment will then be cut and pasted into the body of this page, (finishing with the name you choose, as a way of keeping it clear as to who is writing each piece) and added to as more comments come in - with the idea of keeping the dialogue flowing and allowing for the deeper exploration of ideas.  The SWPE way is one of openness and free exchange of thought.  Together we can learn from each other and move forward in a living sharing of thought.  The format of the Dialogical Journal allows for in depth analysis, argument and counter argument.  

So to get the ball rolling, back to Peter again, to get things started:



As for links to articles, I have one I would both like to submit and to write on from off-guardian.org


What I liked about it was the way it raised the whole issue of 'progressive nationalism' versus 'reactionary nationalism'. This was a subject very much alive when Lenin wrote 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism' (and indeed forms a large section of it). But as a decidedly ex-Stalinist I also think the issue also demands requires some hard historical rethinking when it comes to comparing National Socialism on the one hand and Stalinism on the other - and the causes and nature of the war between them. But of course what is most important is that the whole issue of progressive vs reactionary nationalism, and how to define them, is also an issue very much alive again today - and therefore one I very much look forward to writing on myself - albeit only for politically intelligent readers like yourself and your comrades! A preliminary definition of progressive nationalism: national, socialist, and therefore necessarily monetarily sovereign, but also non-racist and protective of national minorities - even whilst being fundamentally assimilatory in relation to national values, laws and cultures.

Peter Wilberg




This page is a good idea - in depth articles on important issues responded to with equally in depth articles. It sounds like a fairly obvious thing to develop. It's a symptom of our 'soundbite age' that it actually seems so radical. Having said that I haven't the time for an in depth article at the moment, I just thought I would stick my toe tentatively in the deep red water for now. For what it's worth, if I were French, I would certainly follow the PCF advice re' voting in the first round of the Presidential elections, and switch to Le Penn in the second round should the choice be between her and the mainstream Conservative candidate. How could any revolutionary, whether they class themselves as Left, Right, or Third Positionist, not choose this course of action. The Establishment has at last suffered severe political setbacks this year. We need this process to continue, even if it means diluting our ideological purity (which has never got us very far, let's be honest) in the first place.
Socialist England Representative.

3 comments:

Socialist England Representative said...

This page is a good idea - in depth articles on important issues responded to with equally in depth articles. It sounds like a fairly obvious thing to develop. It's a symptom of our 'soundbite age' that it actually seems so radical. Having said that I haven't the time for an in depth article at the moment, I just thought I would stick my toe tentatively in the deep red water for now. For what it's worth, if I were French, I would certainly follow the PCF advice re' voting in the first round of the Presidential elections, and switch to Le Penn in the second round should the choice be between her and the mainstream Conservative candidate. How could any revolutionary, whether they class themselves as Left, Right, or Third Positionist, not choose this course of action. The Establishment has at last suffered severe political setbacks this year. We need this process to continue, even if it means diluting our ideological purity (which has never got us very far, let's be honest) in the first place.
Socialist England Representative.

Anonymous said...

"A preliminary definition of progressive nationalism: national, socialist, and therefore necessarily monetarily sovereign, but also non-racist and protective of national minorities - even whilst being fundamentally assimilatory in relation to national values, laws and cultures." - Wilberg, above.

This roundly contradicts what has been written on the SWPE site where white separatism is promoted, not just European values and culture but it would appear that the DNA thing is central. The result seems to be in terms of policy that the SWPE wishes to send all non-white people and of course some white non-British people away with what is called voluntary repatriation. This idea might have been a goer 50 years ago, possibly, but things have changed hugely since then. Getting nostalgic about the old NF policies as if they have standing outside of historical context is foolish. That's not to say that it is in and of itself a bad idea and that it wouldn't have any effect, but ultimately if you wanted to whiten Britain a bit more, you would end up with non-voluntary repatriation, inevitably. So please, don't try to sweeten the pill, the results would be violent and ugly.

In a previous post the terms assimilation and multiculturalism were confused, deliberately or ignorantly I'm not sure. So for the sake of clarity:

Assimiliation:the process whereby a minority group adapts to the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture and customs.
Multiculturalism:The presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society all equally valued.
I hope that's cleared things up.

Nobody is arguing that mass immigration should not be ended, the endless churn of people which serves no one but the usurious capitalists. It could also be that if the British economy were less dependent on banking, the country would be less London-centric and this in itself would dim the attraction of coming here.
Strasser said that even if immigrant groups do exist within the social national state, they can choose to assimilate which as has already been explained is not multiculturalism, or can form a national minority group which absolutely must accept that the public, majority national culture is the dominant one and that their scope is very much limited to their own community. This, I would propose is also not multiculturalism, there would be a dominant culture, unapologetically so. This cultural self confidence would I imagine express itself in the fact that our legal system is formed by the dominant, British culture and would start to be applied without fear or favour across the land and in every quarter.
Well you can ignore my ramblings if you choose, but I would at least request that the SWPE start to present a coordinated set of ideas rather than contradictory ones.

Peter Wilberg said...

Reply from Peter Wilberg to Anon.

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1KvUa9mbmPmStP6QqcBHJYO0DNzIRchv4PUJ8kE1kJqY/edit?usp=sharing