The Internationale RMB

WA Delegate: The People's Republic of Auhl (elected 31 days ago)

Founder: The Internationale of Illa Passiflora

World Factbook Entry

The Internationale is a broad alliance of anarchists, socialists, communists, and other left-wing nations and communes.

The Internationale opposes the exploitation and oppression of the people by the forces of capitalism, imperialism and fascism.


"The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Workers of the world, unite!"

"No real social change has ever come about without a revolution. Revolution is but thought carried into action."

LinkThe Internationale in 47 Languages



LinkArchives of the Red & Black
LinkIRC: #TheInternationale on EsperNet

Link/r/Communism101 FAQ LinkIMT Marxism FAQ
LinkAn Anarchist FAQ
LinkMarxists Internet Archive
LinkAnarchy Archives
LinkRevleft



LinkJoin The Red Fleet!
LinkTRF Recruitment Video




Embassies: The International, North Korea, The Red Fleet, Das Kommune, CIL, Freedom and Justice Alliance, Antifa, The Communist Internationale, Libcom, The MT Army, Labour and Socialist International, United Socialist Republics, Democratic Socialist Assembly, Allied States of EuroIslanders, The Communist Region, The Cannabis Communists, and 20 others.Marxism Leninism, Eurasia, Red Star Republic, The League of Reformed Socialist States, The International Communist Union, TI Historical Restoration Project, NSLeft, Marxist Scholars Circle, Socialism, The Leftist Union, Primitive Communism, Anti Nazi Alliance, The Circle of Socialism, Federacion Comunista Iberica, Union of Socialist Soviet Republics, Lazarus, ITALIA, The Green Star Socialist Union, The Communist Legion, and Hippy Haven.

The embassy with Libcom is being withdrawn. Closure expected in 1 day 12 hours.

Construction of embassies with 4th International has commenced. Completion expected in 1 day 12 hours.

Tags: Democratic, Enormous, Anti-Fascist, Non-English, Communist, Social, Anarchist, Casual, Independent, Eco-friendly, Socialist, Anti-Capitalist, and 1 other.Serious.

Regional Power: High

The Internationale contains 316 nations, the 29th most in the world.

ActivityHistoryAdministration

Today's World Census Report

The Largest Manufacturing Sector in The Internationale

As a region, The Internationale is ranked 17,627th in the world for Largest Manufacturing Sector.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
21.The People's Republic of ResconiaScandinavian Liberal Paradise“Libertas est Praemium”
22.The Federation of The Ebony CompanyCorrupt Dictatorship“Communism with a side of corruption”
23.The Kingdom of Lukedonia ArcCorporate Bordello“LIVE WELL, SLEEP WELL”
24.The Republic of ImeloesirmutlaoCorrupt Dictatorship“The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere”
25.The People's Republic of KoltenkaniaIron Fist Socialists“Workers of the World, Unite!”
26.The Most Serene Republic of SpruceCivil Rights Lovefest“All salad, no sausage”
27.The Nomadic Peoples of Blue Fur NationDemocratic Socialists“They are We”
28.The Free Land of LanunScandinavian Liberal Paradise“Raise the Black Flag”
29.The Most Serene Republic of StygiumLibertarian Police State“ Wie oben, unten ist es”
30.The Empire of United Fire NationInoffensive Centrist Democracy“This is the story all about how.....”
Page:  «  1  2  3  4  5  6  . . . 31  32  »

Regional Happenings

More...

The Internationale Regional Message Board

The Rogue Nation of United Gender Terrorists wrote:A revolution of some sort is always necessary, and it also always requires extreme violence.

One of the standard counter-examples to this line is Allende, Chile 1973, a socialist who was democratically elected to executive office, with no need for open warfare in the city streets and so on.


He was elected in 1970; 1973 was the year he was violently overthrown.

The People's Republic of Laspea wrote:The election of a socialist government and the subsequent reforms pushed through by said government is still an act of extreme violence - at the institutional level, at least. ...

This position is OK by me. I didn't take my interlocutor to mean "violence" in this way, and that wasn't the way I was using the term either. But yes, I agree with you under your definition of violence. (I would, however, be more inclined to term this kind of resistance "civil disobedience," or generally nonviolent even in the face of class-based institutional violence directed from one direction.)

The Free Soil of BURNINATI0N wrote:This position is OK by me. I didn't take my interlocutor to mean "violence" in this way, and that wasn't the way I was using the term either. But yes, I agree with you under your definition of violence. (I would, however, be more inclined to term this kind of resistance "civil disobedience," or generally nonviolent even in the face of class-based institutional violence directed from one direction.)

I see. Well then I suppose we'd only be arguing about semantics if we continued this conversation

To the original question, then: no, I don't think reformist or gradual methods are enough on their own to achieve socialism

The People's Republic of Laspea wrote:To the original question, then: no, I don't think reformist or gradual methods are enough on their own to achieve socialism

I'd be interested to see this position filled out with full argument. Also though, this position doesn't seem to exclude from the table of practical possibility supporting gradual change. (You'd just have to support gradual change + something else.)

I might agree with this, depending on how you fill it out. I tend to agree with Rosa, who argued (briefly) that "our fight is in the factories." That is, when the proletariat gains class consciousness, it will waltz into power without much of a fight. Her position is slightly naive on that note (there will be bourgeois resistance even in that scenario, but it won't be and can't be widespread since there are so few of them comparatively, plus that at least in the historical example of Spain, many of the bourgeois who lost a LOT of property joined the anarchists because they agreed with them morally), but I think it's generally right. We need to be organizing locally to overcome what is essentially a collective action problem. All the proletariat would benefit if they were all willing to see this and act. The fight is to first teach and prepare the proletariat for this. Once that is done, incrementalism can be totally abandoned, and the proletariat will be able to rule wholesale.

The Free Soil of BURNINATI0N wrote:I'd be interested to see this position filled out with full argument. Also though, this position doesn't seem to exclude from the table of practical possibility supporting gradual change. (You'd just have to support gradual change + something else.)

Gradual change and reformist measures can help to strengthen the worker's movement relative to capital. We saw this in the first half of the 20th century in much of the developed world, where many leftists took the reformist route and (eventually) built the social democratic post-war consensus. However, to fully break with the capitalist mode of production and make the gains of the worker's movement permanent, revolution is still required.

I don't support social democracy and reformism, but I'm not actively against them like some revolutionary socialists.

My position is the following one:
- Given the right conditions, a revolution can have a positive balance in the establishment of a socialist state.
- A democratic victory of the left, when significant, is not always strong enough to stay by itself (check Chile, why the Spanish Civil War started, to some extent the Donetsk & Luhansk People's Republics now...).
- From these points, a strong authoritative implementation of socialism after a democratic victory (as a counter-reformist measure) enables the consolidation of a socialist state without the bourgeois messing with it. This is, obviously, a temporary measure and it shall never be against the original intentions of the proletariat.
- Protecting bourgeois democracy after the victory is not as useful as guaranteeing a social democracy. The main problem with bourgeois democracy during a socialist presidency is the following one:
+ If there is a bourgeois democracy, the imperialist forces will try to grip it and capsize the economy, effectively boycotting the socialist government. See Chile under Allende.
+ If there is not a bourgeois democracy, the imperialist forces will call it a dictatorship and they will distribute propaganda for the people in the imperialist countries to think that a military intervention is justified. This leads to a huge conflict. See Vietnam, Cuba (to some extent).

They have effectively blocked these possibilities, which leads to the Marxist omnipresent concept of "class struggle".

Anti-Fascists Clash with Pegida Movement in Vienna
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlyB7eOXlds

Founded in Germany in 2014, the far right, anti-Islamic movement Pegida has since spread throughout western Europe, with organizers planning demonstrations in Switzerland, Spain, and Belgium.

On February 2, the movement held a rally in Vienna, Austria, but was met with opposition from anti-fascist activists in the city center. Despite being separated by heavy police presence, tension between the two groups escalated.

The Free Soil of BURNINATI0N wrote:by choosing to be violently revolutionary instead of buttressing the bourgeois republic, the KPD helped pave the way for the Nazis to take power.

I agree. I think the Comintern might have realized this as well and that's why they abandoned the "social fascist" theory for the popular front.

I find this whole conversation mystifying, advocating Rosa Luxemburg and anarcho-syndicalism while at the same time championing reformist paths to socialism. Luxemburg's most famous work is literally called Reform or Revolution, wherein she viciously critiques Bernstein, the figurehead of reformist/revisionist Marxism in her day. To quote from the "Conquest of Political Power" section of Luxemburg's pamphlet:

"It is contrary to history to represent work for reforms as a long-drawn out revolution and revolution as a condensed series of reforms. A social transformation and a legislative reform do not differ according to their duration but according to their content. The secret of historic change through the utilisation of political power resides precisely in the transformation of simple quantitative modification into a new quality, or to speak more concretely, in the passage of an historic period from one given form of society to another.

That is why people who pronounce themselves in favour of the method of legislative reform in place and in contradistinction to the conquest of political power and social revolution, do not really choose a more tranquil, calmer and slower road to the same goal, but a different goal. Instead of taking a stand for the establishment of a new society they take a stand for surface modifications of the old society. If we follow the political conceptions of revisionism, we arrive at the same conclusion that is reached when we follow the economic theories of revisionism. Our program becomes not the realisation of socialism, but the reform of capitalism; not the suppression of the wage labour system but the diminution of exploitation, that is, the suppression of the abuses of capitalism instead of suppression of capitalism itself."

Full text of Reform or Revolution:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/

A final note, Herbert Marcuse himself was fired from Brandeis University in 1965 simply for refusing to denounce the revolutionary implications of his work. There's critiques of his work (in my opinion more accurate of others who followed in his wake) as pointless navel gazing or exercises in pure academia, but to throw him in with other reformists is intellectually dishonest.

The People's Republic of Auhl wrote:My position is the following one:
- Given the right conditions, a revolution can have a positive balance in the establishment of a socialist state.
- A democratic victory of the left, when significant, is not always strong enough to stay by itself (check Chile, why the Spanish Civil War started, to some extent the Donetsk & Luhansk People's Republics now...).
- From these points, a strong authoritative implementation of socialism after a democratic victory (as a counter-reformist measure) enables the consolidation of a socialist state without the bourgeois messing with it. This is, obviously, a temporary measure and it shall never be against the original intentions of the proletariat.
- Protecting bourgeois democracy after the victory is not as useful as guaranteeing a social democracy. The main problem with bourgeois democracy during a socialist presidency is the following one:
+ If there is a bourgeois democracy, the imperialist forces will try to grip it and capsize the economy, effectively boycotting the socialist government. See Chile under Allende.
+ If there is not a bourgeois democracy, the imperialist forces will call it a dictatorship and they will distribute propaganda for the people in the imperialist countries to think that a military intervention is justified. This leads to a huge conflict. See Vietnam, Cuba (to some extent).

They have effectively blocked these possibilities, which leads to the Marxist omnipresent concept of "class struggle".


Authoritarian Socialism creates a new bureaucracy and thus a new entitled class. Take the Soviet Union for example. Under Stalin and to a lesser extent Lenin, the government became more and more like the old aristocracy. I'll use a military term to sum it up; 'mission creep'. The mission of the Proletariat was slowly degraded into a power grab.

It's because of this that I think a spontaneous Anarchist revolt (as outlined in Peter Kropotkin's "The Conquest of Bread") will be the only way to truly change society.

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics