The Internationale

Comrades, I've read everything that's been written here over the past half-hour or so and wow. I am amazed at the excellent debate. A lot of you are making sense, but Golanchia isn't. I'm not opposed to pacifism but at the same time, I understand the need for violence. I am personally anti-Maoist mostly because Mao was a Stalinist dictator, something I can't abide by. Capitalism is on it's way out, and thankfully there has been a surge to the left in Europe as well as south America. However, the United States is drifting ever nearer to the right and this concerns me greatly. The issue in the United States is the current two party system that basically prevents candidates from smaller parties from really gathering momentum in their campaigns. Despite this, the left is still fractured and the various left-wing parties refuse to work together and bicker like children. If we could unite the left in the United States somehow, and get them elected to at the very least the House of Representatives but the Senate too, the Democrats and Republicans would be forced to either work together or try to work with the left, something which could potentially force one or the other to change their ways.

I believe that, though instituting economic change politically is more difficult and takes a lot longer, the less violence the better. Civil wars very rarely end well, and all it takes is one charismatic figure to ruin everything.

@ Dearest comrade jugandaria, I doubt even if a true leftist (highly doubt this is even possible with the sheer amount of corporate presence in the government) was elected he would be able to get anything done whatsoever. True, meaningful change, rarely comes from above.

@ Bronshteinland I am deeply opposed to Nationalism. it divides up the peoples of the world. It is a tool used by the ruling classes to herd people into conflict. I am firm in my position that we are all brothers and sisters, no matter what country we inhabit.

That said, the Soviet National Anthem is quite beautiful.

Welcome back Dehoytchland, North America and the Great Lakes, Hungry Freaks and Olvi III who've all been operating in defence of Paris Commune!
Welcome also to the new Comrades, Seventeen Hemlocks, Body Without Organs & Bakunistan

-----
Embassy Votes

Proletaurus proposed we construct embassies with the region USSR
6 votes For: TUNAF Ambassador to The Internationale, United Soomedr, Proletaurus, Gilthador, Jugandaria, New Sloveniakia
0 votes Against:
0 votes Abstain:

*NEW* Embassy requests

RORMS (the newly created Region of reunited muslim states which is currently under occupation by The Black Riders) -
4 votes For: TUNAF Ambassador to The Internationale, United Soomedr, Proletaurus, New Sloveniakia
2 votes Against: Jugandaria, Tachanka
1 votes Abstain: Gilthador

Red Army (given to The Red Fleet by Argentina, now administered and protected by The Red Fleet) -
7 votes For: TUNAF Ambassador to The Internationale, United Soomedr, Jugandaria, Proletaurus, Gilthador, New Sloveniakia, Tachanka
0 votes Against:
0 votes Abstain:

Endless Spaces -
2 votes For: Gilthador, New Sloveniakia
1 votes Against: Tachanka
4 votes Abstain: TUNAF Ambassador to The Internationale, United Soomedr, Proletaurus, Jugandaria

The Southeast -
0 votes For:
3 votes Against: Gilthador, Jugandaria, Tachanka
3 votes Abstain: TUNAF Ambassador to The Internationale, Proletaurus, New Sloveniakia

Egalitarian Union -
7 votes For: TUNAF Ambassador to The Internationale, United Soomedr, Proletaurus, Gilthador, Jugandaria, New Sloveniakia, Tachanka
0 votes Against:
0 votes Abstain:

Musilogic -
6 votes For: United Soomedr, Proletaurus, Gilthador, Jugandaria, New Sloveniakia, Tachanka
0 votes Against:
1 votes Abstain: TUNAF Ambassador to The Internationale

The International Communist Union -
6 votes For: TUNAF Ambassador to The Internationale, United Soomedr, Gilthador, Proletaurus, Jugandaria, New Sloveniakia
0 votes Against:
0 votes Abstain:

Paris Commune (proposed by Opaloka who is leading a solidarity mission there for The Red Fleet) -
7 votes For: Tachanka, TUNAF Ambassador to The Internationale, United Soomedr, Proletaurus, Gilthador, Jugandaria, New Sloveniakia
0 votes Against:
0 votes Abstain:

Independent Nations Union -
1 votes For: New Sloveniakia
3 votes Against: TUNAF Ambassador to The Internationale, United Soomedr, Gilthador, Tachanka
1 votes Abstain: Proletaurus

-----

Proletaurus's proposal:
'Also Proposing little simplification to our Embassy Voting Protocol mainly for saving RMB space: We could handle our Embassy votings simply only with Options of 'For' and 'Against'. People who wish to Vote FOR or AGAINST could do that regardless of current list of embassy requests could include other reguests too. If not voting at all or saying nothing about some particular embassy reguest could then considered as 'Abstaining' such reguest. There is no need to declare that Abstain, as it then would be automatic if speaking nothing about it. So, there would not then nescessary spend lines on RMB for these cases and such RMB messages would be also shorter too. In case where no one vote For or Against, result could be then considered 'No Embassy' even in case no-one actually are not directly against such Embassy.'
3 votes For: Proletaurus, Santorum Ate My Bush, Tachanka
0 votes Against:
0 votes Abstain:

-----

As with the continuing debate, I personally disagree Herrebrugh, if someone is using a bourgeois ideal, but coating it in the language of the left, does not make them of the Left. This would clearly place tyrants such as Stalin, Mao, Gaddafi, etc in the "left" camp. They claimed to be of the Left, used all sorts of justifications steeped in Socialist/Marxist language but to promote very reactionary and detrimental policies to the proletariat. This doesn't alter any less because the person is Kaustky, Plekhanov or wishy-washy "nice" Socialists. Dressing up bourgeois perceptions in Socialist terminology doesn't decry it's origins. Essentially, the ideals of "pacifism" operate to shore up the defences of the bourgeoisie, steeped in language of morality (which can be a whole new debate if needs be), and therefore I will challenge it within any strain of thought in the Left.

Of course the striving example is for a society which does not produce war, but this has to be a society with such contradictions as class (and state), therefore until we reach that, pacifism is the dupe of the toiling masses.

New Sloveniakia
You must take into account the entire quote, so the quote is taken from Marx's article on censorship, this has no relation to the topic in question. Full quote below:
We have shown how the press law expresses a right and the censorship law a wrong. The censorship itself, however, admits that it is not an end in itself, that it is not something good in and for itself, that its basis therefore is the principle: "The end justifies the means." But an end which requires unjustified means is no justifiable end, and could not the press also adopt the principle and boast: "The end justifies the means"?

Marx wrote a lot, and most of it polemical, small quotes out of context can lead a reader to reach false conclusions. I've seen people comparing quotes of Marx with Hitler and claiming that Marx was a rapid anti-semite, but taken within it's polemical context, as a polemic against the work of Bauer, you soon come to realise that Marx was not the anti-semite some people attribute him as. Context is a wonderful thing, and rarely applied appropriately. Not to mention, Marx didn't quantify what he considered justifiable means, Trotsky and Lenin used works from Marx to justify the October Revolution and War Communism along with the Cheka and centralisation of the state in the period of the Civil War (resulting in "terror"), but with no quantifiable assertions from Marx that what they attempted was "un-justifiable", you might as well piss in the wind.

With regards to this comment: 'You can take out Marxist philosophy and argue that Stalinism is better than fascism because Stalinism doesn't oppose the proletariat in the same way that fascism does.'
I'd argue to the contrary, in my opinion, Stalin was entirely opposed to the proletariat, he engaged in all sorts of dubious acts to destroy the gains of the proletariat, but it was not simply "terror", but how and to whom it was used. Fascism and Stalinism are not the same, both are abhorrent, I won't deny that, but distinctions must be drawn. There is a distinct difference between the Falange, Freikorps and Fascism, these differences are subtle, but enough to draw distinction. They are all enemies of the working masses (along with Stalinism), but each has it's own distinct features , resting on class and position. Stalin was operating in a deformed workers state, thereby the means of production were not in the hand of the Capitalists, but regardless, Stalin still as far as I'm concerned represented a threat to the gains of the proletariat. He was the de-Socialisation process, the anti-thesis to worker control. He was not a Fascist though. These distinctions must be heeded, otherwise people can blindly step into all sorts of theoretical troubles, when dealing with class conflicts.

Novus Honoris: 'As far as I am concerned, we are all comrades here in the end. It doesn't matter to me which dead Russian guy you like the most.

But liking any political system in which people are ruled over in a Totalitarian manner is not acceptable, whether it is under the swastika, or a hammer and sickle.'

Firstly, I think most of us take inspiration from some "dead Russian guy" (whether it be Trotsky or Kroptopkin), though they may not be the forefathers of the theories we espouse (Marx/Engels being German, etc), either way the being dead and/or Russian has little relevance as to why we support their theories. With exceptions to national chauvinists who support Stalinist logic (National Bolshevism being a disgusting degradation of Marxian ideological tenants!) in Russia.

Do you equate "Totalitarian" with "Authoritarian"? What are you're thoughts on the Dictatorship of the Proletariat? As perceivably that is authoritarian/totalitarian, but if it's in conjunction with the socialisation of the means of production and with the interests of the proletariat, then I would support a suspension of traditional "democratic" means.

Gilthador, of what you say, there lies a lot of truth. However I think we should continue to build along the lines of the Socialist movements. The problem is I feel, leadership. People may be prepared to engage in the socialisation of society given the right ideological, theoretical leadership. Otherwise, as in 1917, 1921, 1945, 1968, we will see the gains of the masses of the workers squandered. Propaganda does play a key role, and the word Communism has been sullied (and continues to be so) by regimes set up on the ideological tenants of Stalin, but nonetheless, however careful we are with the words and phrases we use, it must be with the realisation that Communism is the final goal. Otherwise, as Engels pointed out, it is either that or "barbarism" (another word for Fascism no less?).

Finally, on "Nationalism". Essentially as an "Internationalist", I'm diametrically opposed. However, having said that it serves a purpose to some degree to the colonial states of the world. If "Nationalism" is used, to turn a feudal state from it's Imperialist power and to bring it towards the revolution that will bring about Capitalism (and subsequently Socialism/Communism) then, I support it, but of course with appropriate concerns. So for example, I consider myself a Palestinian Nationalist, only in the sense of breaking up Israeli hegemony, as an Imperial power. This Palestinian nationalism however, can never affect the solidarity of the working masses, much more important to me, would be to see the Palestinian, Jordanian, Syrian, Lebanese & Israeli working classes rise up and destroy all of their feudal/Capitalist/Bonapartist/theological governments in one foul swoop and create a united Socialist republic that spans the entire region and eventually envelops the world in Communism!

Having said that. I do find myself quite seduced by the Soviet "nationalist" art during the 1920's-1940's and the Soviet National Anthem (though I prefer The Internationale in Russian as far as anthems go!) I have a soft-spot for!

Finally, I'd like to applaud all of our returning Comrades, who have successfully secured the Paris Commune to live on eternally! Long Live the Commune! Long live the Revolution!!

In Solidarity Comrades ☭
BerZerK

@ Marxingrad Isn't the "dictatorship of the proletariat" simply the domination of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie? And by extension, the domination of the majority of people over the few? Right now, we live in the Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie, so to speak.

I believe the Bourgeoisie should be dominated over tyrannically and authoritarian like for a time, (until they are reduced to nothing) but I do not believe a socialist society should take a anti-democratic route, for if it did, it would not be a dictatorship OF the proletariat, it would revert into a dictatorship OVER the proletariat.

I am honoured by my promotion, Proletaurus, thank you. :)

My entry for the Granma competition is my flag, I know it needs work but hey, it's a start.