Geopolitics of National Bolshevism


The idea that the KPD once had a Syndicalist faction among its ranks is something that I did not anticipate. I am also surprised to learn that the ousting of the Syndicalist faction helped contribute to the creation of National Bolshevism by Laufenberg and Wolffheim, which was an entirely different ideology distinct from Syndicalism. It would seem that because the Syndicalists were far from being well-organized and well-regarded, another faction was able to take their place. What I am thinking is that, between these Syndicalists and the National Bolsheviks, there seemed to have been disagreements on how to proceed with the failure of the November Revolution and the subsequent Weimar Republic. The most significant was whether the Class Struggle is capable of being nationalized to suit the national essence of the German-speaking world.

This in turn explains why the subject of this ARPLAN Post is focused on the geopolitical climate of the early 20th century in relation to the German-speaking world. Here, Laufenberg and Wolffheim were correct in arguing that the Weimar Republic represented a Liberal Capitalist regime beholden to the interests of the Liberal Capitalists who fought in the First World War as the Allied Powers. But as the two men pointed out, the Allies were united against the German-speaking world as colonial powers that viewed Germany itself as a stepping stone for further domination of the Eurasian landmass. We can tell based on the following three assertions:

  • America and Japan were later poised to compete for control of the Pacific, a conflict that was already being anticipated in the late 1910s and early 1920s by people like Vladimir Lenin and Kita Ikki.
  • France and England sought to maintain their hegemonies in the Mediterranean and Middle East, with colonial empires determined to expand into areas bordering the then-nascent Soviet Union.
  • The Versailles Treaty was designed, in addition to denying Germany the ability to control the size and composition of its armed forces, to also prevent Germany from seeking rapprochement with the Soviets. It then becomes necessary for a German-Soviet alliance to occur in order to not only prevent the Allies from surrounding Germany, but also the Soviet Union by extension.

These assertions are still valid in today’s geopolitical climate, even though the borders may have changed over the past century. The general premise is that a Liberal Capitalist hegemony over the Eurasian landmass is made possible by establishing a foothold in Eastern Europe and East Asia. Germany and Japan could have denied the Allies from doing so in the late 20th century, had they been on better terms with the Soviets. But because they were not, the Jeffersonians succeeded in establishing their Empire of Liberty, with Germany and Japan serving as their gateways to the rest of Eurasia. Russia and China are two major challengers to that hegemony.

Therefore, if Germany is going to gain its national sovereignty, Laufenberg and Wolffheim advocated for a new Germany governed by a Council State beholden to the German Volk. A strong, independent Reich is conducive to the interests of both the German-speaking world and the Soviets. That argument still holds true to this day.


Categories: Philosophy

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: