The Internationale RMB

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

Founder: The Camarada de Siempre of Illa Passiflora

World Factbook Entry

The Internationale is an alliance of Socialists, Communists, Anarcho-Communist, Anarcho-syndicalists and Anarchists 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.

You have nothing to lose but your chains, for it is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.

People of the world, unite!

All power to the imagination!

LinkVideo
LinkWebsite
LinkRadio Internationale: The Internationale in 47 languages



Linklibcom.org
LinkWorld Socialist Web Site
LinkAnarkismo.net
LinkMarxists.org
LinkAnarchy Archives
LinkIndymedia.org.uk
LinkContrainfo.espiv.net

Want to Join LinkTHE RED FLEET ? >> LinkVIDEO Introduction



In memory of La Pasionaria, Camarada de Siempre and First Founder.


Embassies: The International, North Korea, The Red Fleet, Das Kommune, CIL, Freedom and Justice Alliance, Autonomous Peoples, Antifa, The Communist Internationale, Libcom, The MT Army, Congress of Armed Proletarian States, Labour and Socialist International, United Socialist Republics, Democratic Socialist Assembly, The Proletariat Coalition, and 5 others.Allied States of EuroIslanders, The Communist Region, Ivory Tower, The Cannabis Communists, and primitive communism.

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

The Internationale contains 182 nations, the 59th most in the world.

ActivityHistoryAdministration

Today's World Census Report

The Most Politically Free in The Internationale

These nations allow citizens the greatest amount of freedom to select their own government.

As a region, The Internationale is ranked 4,355th in the world for Most Politically Free.

#NationWA CategoryMotto
21.The Republic of AvessiyaLeft-wing Utopia“Never give up, never surrender.”
22.The Dominion of FaolinnCivil Rights Lovefest“Like wolves until the end!”
23.The Worker's Commune of MistelemrWA MemberLeft-wing Utopia“Bread, Peace, Freedom”
24.The Socialist Soviet Communes of TaakWA MemberLiberal Democratic Socialists“All power to the proletariat!”
25.The Federation of Anarchists of Southern AfricaLeft-wing Utopia“Workers of the World, Unite!”
26.The Proletarian Dictatorship of ZulankaLeft-wing Utopia“¡Hasta la Victoria Siempre!”
27.The Liberal Elites of TaxaliciousLeft-wing Utopia“Who needs jobs when you have parks?”
28.The Democratic Socialist Union of Conferated IndividualsWA MemberLeft-wing Utopia“You have nothing to lose but your chains”
29.The Soviet Republic of MaristaliaLeft-wing Utopia“United forever in friendship and labour ”
30.The Democratic Commune of PopuliiLeft-wing Utopia“Freedom, Equality, and Justice”
Page:  «  1  2  3  4  5  6  . . . 18  19  »

Regional Happenings

More...

The Internationale Regional Message Board

I vote against both calls for removal.

Basmenia

Listening is one thing, but supporting a deal that runs contrary to what this region is about, is another.

Aladeen was removed for posting REATO propaganda. I suggest you read our WFE.

@4yrs

One can be informal and also be aware that mass action is necessary. The issue is that most communist and socialist parties do not change their tactics. In most cases, they do not offer alternative education to the children of the working class, and in turn the worker's children go to bourgeois instutions to learn. The people's will had a school, schools were developed in Spain during the revolution etc. If one wants to reform then so be it, that's the preferred method of some people. However, if a party can sit in parliaments, lead union strikes etc, there's no reason why their children should have to go to bourgeois schools. For a party that prides themselves on organization, they are actually disorganized in the most fundamental ways. You say we can't strike now, okay, how about educate while you are waiting. Force the bourgeoisie to recognize socialist and communist education, begin to develop a space, in that way. I would go to a Marxist 'university' in an instant, as I'm sure many here would as well.

Anyone that is interested in the Narodnaya Volya, I set up a propaganda region the new organization go through the links, I if you chose.

4yrs

Communist parties are also one of the reasons why anarchists are seen in a bad light, the communist parties along with the bourgeoisie have thrown there own negative propaganda toward anarchists. Therefore, you can't really justify why those acts that you say don't work and at the same time use similar anti-anarchist propaganda (the mad man holding a bomb) as the bourgeoisie. Most communist parties are more similar to the bourgeoisie than the actual struggle itself, and that's hardly anyone else's fault.

The Community of Casita wrote: 1. One can be informal and also be aware that mass action is necessary. 2. The issue is that most communist and socialist parties do not change their tactics. 3. In most cases, they do not offer alternative education to the children of the working class, and in turn the worker's children go to bourgeois instutions to learn. The people's will had a school, schools were developed in Spain during the revolution etc. If one wants to reform then so be it, that's the preferred method of some people. However, if a party can sit in parliaments, lead union strikes etc, there's no reason why their children should have to go to bourgeois schools. For a party that prides themselves on organization, they are actually disorganized in the most fundamental ways. You say we can't strike now, okay, how about educate while you are waiting. Force the bourgeoisie to recognize socialist and communist education, begin to develop a space, in that way. I would go to a Marxist 'university' in an instant, as I'm sure many here would as well.

1. True. However, a formal organization tends to be more useful for mass action than an informal grouping. Take the Spartacus League for example, its main problem was its lack of organization and that it waited for to long to establish itself as a faction within the Social Democratic Party. If it had built a firm organization earlier it would have had a much better chance to take power and to avoid the mess that ultimately resulted. One of the reasons that the Bolshevik party was able to take power was that it clearly distinguished itself in an organized form form the beginning.

2. Fair enough, one must always be be prepared to criticize one's own organization and tactics when they fall behind the times. But that applies universally to all organizations and all tactics. No tactic is universally valid in all situations.

3. I certainly agree with the development of Marxist schools for working class children, universities for the workers, and so forth. We also must work to build up our organizations in the mean time and prepare for the storms to come.

4. The struggle for reforms, the trade union struggle, must be linked to the revolutionary struggle for the overthrow of the capitalist system. Reform, in addition to getting immediate practical concessions for the workers, must be a 'school' for revolution. In strikes to win higher wages and better working conditions, the proletariat learns in power. Electoral campaigns allow for the dissemination of socialist and communist ideas.

The Community of Casita wrote:2. Communist parties are also one of the reasons why anarchists are seen in a bad light, the communist parties along with the bourgeoisie have thrown there own negative propaganda toward anarchists. Therefore, you can't really justify why those acts that you say don't work and at the same time use similar anti-anarchist propaganda (3. the mad man holding a bomb) as the bourgeoisie. 4. Most communist parties are more similar to the bourgeoisie than the actual struggle itself, and that's hardly anyone else's fault.

1. Don't try to make me, or Marxists generally, responsible for the official Commintern parties. I daresay that Marxists have done more to expose those parties then anarchists have.

2. You can certainly expect that communists will critique the tactics of anarchism where they feel those tactics are incorrect and will also seek to explain those tactics. However, to say that communists use similar anti-anarchist propaganda to the bourgeois is a slander save for the certain reformists and Stalinist sects and the occasional hysterical comrade.

3. A liberal with a bomb was the actual phrase and that was used to refer to a specific anarchist movement, in a specific country, at a specific time.

4. That is true for many of the old Third International parties, for a variety of reasons, but not for Marxist organizations in general.

The People's Republic of Basmenia wrote:That's not really what I intended, sorry if I came off as thinking as such. Of course there a middle grounds.

No worries.

The People's Republic of Basmenia wrote:I certainly agree, we shouldn't avoid doing things just because it might be used by the ruling class as propaganda against us. I also agree that we shouldn't be a PR initiative, but if we don't have support we really aren't going to get anywhere fast. I would say we must do everything we can to gather support from the public, while still keeping to our ideals.

The Commonwealth of Wise and knowledgeable 4years wrote:The one point I would make is that we do need to consider PR in the sense that we need to win over the masses (without the proletarian masses, after all, there can be no revolution). We can't, after all, engage in armed struggle against the bourgeois state without the masses: the old Narodnaya Volya tried that- and was very good at it, they killed the Tsar even- and it didn't work.

No I don't deny the need to gain the support of the masses, but I don't think that it needs to be a deciding factor in all of our actions. Armed attacks against the state, here and now, by small affinity groups, neither intend to win support nor overthrow the system. Firstly, it is an act of self-liberation, and secondly it kindles further armed attacks which in the right historic social conditions will set in motion large scale insurrection.
I am not an insurrectionary anarchist I still believe that mass organisation is necessary, but I also believe that insurrectionary tactics, if appropriate to specific conditions, should not be dismissed.

Post self-deleted by Casita.

The mad man with a bomb is a metaphor (I should've been more clear), now it's anarchists are all blazing guns, like wild people. I've seen this in not yne exact words, but you know what I'm getting at.

1. Don't try to make me, or Marxists generally, responsible for the official Commintern parties. I daresay that Marxists have done more to expose those parties then anarchists have.

You are correct, generalization isnt a representation of the specific. A point that anarchists have been trying to get across for decades.

I think there are some revolutionary Marxists out there that aren't complacent.

I'm not sure about the last part, so, for now I'll take your word.

No one is saying that mass action isn't important, but when anarchists act in small groups, wouldn't be advantageous to not deny revolutionary action as nonsense?

When the storm comes let's hope the children have already had a revolutionary education; because if not, the outcome will not be the one intended.

Im baaaaaaack

The Community of Casita wrote:The mad man with a bomb is a metaphor (I should've been more clear), now it's anarchists are all blazing guns, like wild people. I've seen this in not yne exact words, but you know what I'm getting at.

You're talking about the kind of Plekhanov-style hysteria that implies that an anarchist is no different than a bandit? (Actually Plekhanov is an interesting case, writing on anarchism he shifts between engaging commentary and half-baked nonsense with surprising regularity.) That sort of thing should definitely be avoided where possible and typically doesn't come out of revolutionary Marxist currents and when it does is representative of this or that comrade losing his/her head.

The Community of Casita wrote:You are correct, generalization isnt a representation of the specific. A point that anarchists have been trying to get across for decades.

Generalizations don't give insight into specific cases- a point Marx was always quick to make ("history does nothing...is nothing but the activity of man pursuing his aims.")- it reflects the action of a group. Quantum theory tells us that it is impossible to predict when an arbitrarily designated atom with decay, but the rate of decay for millions upon millions of atoms is constant over time and radioactive dating can be very accurate and reliable when properly understood. This is prefect example of dialectics in nature and of the relation of the general to the specific. Marxism can't tell you how Mr. John Smith will behave, but explains how people with his class, upbringing, etc. will tend to behave. Anarchists have been losing the argument on the relationship between the general and the specific for decades precisely because they tend to argue that if the general is predictable the specific should be as well or, and this is merely the same thing inversely phrased, that the unpredictability of the specific leads to the unpredictability of the general when historical materialism, dialectics, and now natural science as well teaches the opposite.

The Community of Casita wrote:I think there are some revolutionary Marxists out there that aren't complacent.

Compliancy is anathema to both anarchism and Marxism.

The Community of Casita wrote:No one is saying that mass action isn't important, but when anarchists act in small groups, wouldn't be advantageous to not deny revolutionary action as nonsense?

By revolutionary action I assume you mean assassinations, individual sabotage and the like? If that is the case, then the answer to your question is no. On the contrary it is advantageous to critique such actions, elaborate on a more sensible strategy, analyze the roots of such actions, and so forth.

The Blissful Commune of Sentair wrote:No I don't deny the need to gain the support of the masses, but I don't think that it needs to be a deciding factor in all of our actions. Armed attacks against the state, here and now, by small affinity groups, neither intend to win support nor overthrow the system. Firstly, it is an act of self-liberation, and secondly it kindles further armed attacks which in the right historic social conditions will set in motion large scale insurrection.

At the risk of sounding less then polite: This sort of thing is sentimental nonsense at it's best. The idea of self-liberation by armed acts against the state is rather silly as such acts often serve to prop up the state and lead to crackdowns against the movement. Furthermore a strategy of armed struggle lowers the consciousness of the most advanced workers and sacrifices support for the organization among the rest.

I'll return to my example of the McKinley assassination: Was the assassin liberated? Only if you call begin imprisoned and executed liberated. What happened to popular support for the anarchist movement? It was destroyed. What happened to the bourgeois state? It was enormously strengthened with the passing of anti-anarchist laws (the framework of which would later be used to crackdown on socialists as well), expanded security forces, and the creation of intelligence services (the FBI, for instance, grew out of the various anti-socialist and anti-anarchist surveillance programs). What happened to the anarchist movement? It was drastically weakened, its leaders were imprisoned and eventually exiled, its press was smashed, and so forth. Of course, all of this does not turn on McKinley being assassinated, but that didn't help anything and made things considerably worse.

In terms of lowering class consciousness, that stems from the idea that the anarchist party, or the guerrillas as we have seen in Latin/South America particularly, will win and achieve the revolution and the task of the class struggle is to support the armed movement. Repeated terroristic or guerrilla actions serve to drum this erroneous idea into the heads of sympathetic workers and even into the heads of the comrades participating in armed struggle who start to view themselves as lightyears ahead of the 'backward' and 'reactionary' working class who will never make a revolution and can only reach trade union consciousness.

What will spark off the revolution will not be an anarchist bombing the Tsar but working class women coming out onto the street to demand bread or a desperate proletarian lighting himself on fire for lack of an alternative. The storming of the Winter Place, so to speak, will be a planned action taken after the start of the revolution by the revolutionary party and the revolutionary organizations that develop out of the struggle itself.

[quote=sentair;7215808I am not an insurrectionary anarchist I still believe that mass organisation is necessary, but I also believe that insurrectionary tactics, if appropriate to specific conditions, should not be dismissed.[/quote]

The specific condition for insurrectionary tactics is when the masses are out on the street demanding the resign still of the Tsar and the tactic is taking power. Mass organization is everything, wining the proletarian masses is the end all be all of our movement. I don't give the backside of a small rodent if the comrades in a two men and a dog party are self-liberated or not; what I care about is the level of consciousness of the mass of workers and what can be done to raise it lead it towards the necessity of taking power via a socialist revolution.

That's the trouble with anarchism as a insurrectionary movement: it typically ends up either engaging in sentiment, dreaming beautiful (utopian) dreams, looking for a short cut to revolution, or some combination thereby.

The Community of Casita wrote:When the storm comes let's hope the children have already had a revolutionary education; because if not, the outcome will not be the one intended.

At the most, only a small handful of children will have had a revolutionary education and it is even that is rather unlikely. Fortunately, that doesn't mean much. It is socialism that makes the "new man" not the new man who makes socialism.

The storm is coming now, comrade, the Titanic has already set sail. The years and decades ahead will be ones of wars, revolutions, and counterrevolutions, of storm and thunder, fire and lightening. The death-struggle has already began and the opening skirmishes are being fought out as we speak. In other words, it's a little late in the game to revive the modern school project as a precursor to struggle.

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics