“Patriotic Socialists” are right-wing revisionists in the US who have this notion that the working class is all conservative white men, so thus they need to appeal to conservative ideas.

“Nazbol” can either be a pejorative or much more rarely, a self-given label. In the former sense, it’s a pejorative term for reactionary “socialists” like the users of the subreddit EuropeanSocialists, who often spew drivel you’d either expect from 4chan’s /pol/ or Fox News.

In the latter sense, it refers to radical, populist tendencies of fascism which claim to syncretize far-right social and political views with far-left economics/politics, like Strasserism or Sorelianism.

Going to be writing from mostly a western lens, idk about other places that much.

I presumed nazbols were weird terminally online Stasserists, the ones I always saw would openly believe all the negative CIA propaganda about AES (ex 100 trillion googleplex people dead due to communism, gommunism no food, etc) and think it is a good thing. To add, most of them would praise Hitler somewhere on their user histories or posts for being a strong leader or some other mask off Nazi bullshit, usually about the Holocaust. Tend to be socially conservative, or at least have a lot of overlap with the US conspiracy/QA types. There is no diamat/hismat applied here, just pure aesthetics at best, or a case of the more sinister old game of Nazi appropriation of socialist terms.

Patsocs generally seem to have a superficial understanding of the national question and in a revisionist way want to reform America as it stands at determent to the world without realizing you can’t reform an imperialist monster, it must be knocked down and reformed and that effort, ties to peoples in struggle they can have pride in. The US as the beating heart of the imperialist core pillaging the world, that’s just making a better thief, might as well roll neocon.

They can’t seem to grasp the concept of other nations, futures and so on, they can only see the struggles of past non- imperialist AES nations and think they can 1-1 it on present day America which has radically different conditions, there is no historically materialism for them. Many of them are socially conservative, but not always. I think for the most part they are confused, but as idealists they mean well without realizing the harm they’d bring.

🤔 everytime I try to describe one I end up describing the other as well. I’m interested between the distinction now too!

My understanding is pretty surface level ngl but it’s:

The old nazbols were the social conservatives who while weren’t communist, saw communism as a vector to get what they wanted and co-opted communist rhetoric and imagery for that purpose while being scumbags. And the modern version are essentially right wing reactionaries using the same strategy to legitimise themselves in modern Russia where old Soviets might fall into their trap?

Pat socs are american loving/defending patriots who see socialism as a vector for them to achieve what they want. They are usually socially conservative or liberal in their beliefs and understanding of social justice and systemic issues that face minorities and tend to advocate for a America first mentality within their understanding of a socialist framework?

Like they aren’t exactly the same per my understanding but they aren’t that different either 😕 so to say they are fundamentally different feels like splitting hairs again per my understanding but what do I know lol.

I’d be interested to see what some more well read comrades have to say since I am not.

Now I am generally confused, and forgive for I haven’t been online in my teen years.

So is Maupin a PatSoc or not because he is anti-imperialist and ML, experienced with lots of theory.

Now the PatSocs y’all describe I haven’t never seen at a CPI meeting, those there seem like normal Marxist Leninists. Ranging from rednecks to racial minorities to middle class white kids to openly LGBTQIA+ individuals. So is there a misinterpretation of what PatSocs are?

Are PatSocs different?