The Internationale RMB

WA Delegate (non-executive): The Social Republics of Kazanic Union (elected )

Founder: The Ol' Confederated Communes of Proletaire

BoardActivity History Admin Rank

Most Nations: 26th Most World Assembly Endorsements: 201st Largest Welfare Programs: 723rd+23
Most Compassionate Citizens: 739th Nicest Citizens: 756th Most Inclusive: 790th Most Cheerful Citizens: 1,012th Most Pacifist: 1,097th Highest Foreign Aid Spending: 1,106th Most Eco-Friendly Governments: 1,320th Most Advanced Public Transport: 1,337th Most Extensive Public Healthcare: 1,345th Most Advanced Public Education: 1,345th Best Weather: 1,346th Most Cultured: 1,398th Most Beautiful Environments: 1,418th Most Rebellious Youth: 1,433rd Most Secular: 1,509th Smartest Citizens: 1,586th Largest Governments: 1,647th Healthiest Citizens: 1,653rd Longest Average Lifespans: 1,686th Most Popular Tourist Destinations: 1,708th Lowest Crime Rates: 1,808th Highest Average Tax Rates: 1,896th Highest Poor Incomes: 1,920th
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



LinkForum: Unites.TheRedAnd.Black
LinkThe Internationale RMB Archive (2010-16)
Link#TheInternationale on Discord

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



Join The Red Fleet!
LinkTRF Recruitment Video



Embassies: Democratic Socialist Assembly, Hippy Haven, Antifa, North Korea, The Red Fleet, The MT Army, The Red and Black, Federation of Anarchist Communes, Revolutionary Insurrectionary Army, The Communist Region, ITALIA, NSLeft, the democratic socialist union, The Leftist Assembly, Marxist Scholars Circle, Freedom and Justice Alliance, and 4 others.United Socialist and Anarchist Communes, Revolutionary Socialist League, USSR, and The Region That Has No Big Banks.

Tags: Communist, Eco-Friendly, Casual, LGBT, Enormous, Anti-Fascist, Serious, Non-English, Socialist, Offsite Forums, Anti-Capitalist, Independent, and 3 others.Anarchist, Democratic, and Regional Government.

Regional Power: High

The Internationale contains 438 nations, the 26th most in the world.

Today's World Census Report

The Largest Automobile Manufacturing Sector in The Internationale

World Census analysts extensively tested concept muscle cars in empty parking lots in order to estimate which nations have the largest auto industries.

As a region, The Internationale is ranked 12,434th in the world for Largest Automobile Manufacturing Sector.

NationWA CategoryMotto
31.The Social Republic of NovarutheniaInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Will Of The People”
32.The Democratic Republic of Los tobagosScandinavian Liberal Paradise“SomeBODY once told me the WOOOORLD is gonna roll me”
33.The Federation of Central American TerritoriesDemocratic Socialists“Native land eternally”
34.The People's Republic of Northwestern IngaryFather Knows Best State“But her aim is gettin' better!!!”
35.The Commonwealth of SundebyLeft-wing Utopia“That which cannot be gained without can be found within”
36.The Borderlands of Man With The Red HatDemocratic Socialists“This machine kills fascists”
37.The Republic of EU-toRiaLeft-Leaning College State“United we stand”
38.The Republic of Assyrian4Liberal Democratic Socialists“Kindness and Compassion Above All”
39.The People's Republic of Kutthroat NationInoffensive Centrist Democracy“Pride and Industry”
40.The Republic of Ceaseless MarchCivil Rights Lovefest“Progress is a ceaseless march”
«1234567. . .4344»

Regional Happenings

More...

The Internationale Regional Message Board

The Forbidden Planet of BURNINATI0N wrote:I wonder what you will do with me!
I try not to blabber idly, but I believe that there is great truth in the following line, penned by Noam Chomsky:
"Libertarian socialism is properly to be regarded as the inheritor of the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment."
I am an anarchosyndicalist precisely because I believe this -- liberals were to the monarchs of the 1700's and 1800's as LibSocs are to the Capitalist class. I see the Communist tradition as a continuation and expansion of the beliefs of the Enlightenment liberals rather than as a radical break from that tradition.
So, what say you to THAT! ;)

I am sorry to tell you that, but Communism is not the "continuation and expansion of the beliefs of the Enlightenment liberals". In fact it is exactly the opposite of that: the communist movement wants to create an antithesis to the current order of things and achieve the completion of history by abolishing social classes. Communism is a continuation of "liberalism" (if only the so-called liberals supported liberty) only historically (as long as it is achieved), not ideologically. Also, I don't think that Enlightenment is a period we should be really proud of, as Adorno and Horkheimer showed on their book Dialectic of Enlightenment. But I got to ask, what are some liberals of the Enlightenment you are fond of? In my opinion, 19th century German philosophy was a lot more important and interesting than the Enlightenment.

The Workers' State of Zulanka in TI wrote:I hope I don't come off too harsh, and I have criticized post-leftist anarchists here before, but I think Bob Black points out well how Chomsky himself simply doesn't break with liberalism, certainly not anarchism as a whole (his leaning on natural rights in particular): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-chomsky-nod#toc3
His debate with Foucault (who at times could've been called an anarchist/anarchistic) is pretty good on this subject as well. Parts of the debate came off as Chomsky pretty explicitly retreating into liberalism next to a real radical.
I myself could only agree with Chomsky's statement if meant in a Hegelian sense, i.e. communism as part of a dialectical movement as the negation of liberalism. I'm pretty sure Chomsky's not a fan of Hegel though!

It should, also, be noted that Foucault humiliated Chomsky on that debate.

Mattopilos and Uklatvolosk

The legal-left and other toothless dogs: A J-20 report:
The legal “left” seeks such collaboration and reassurances first because they hate and fear the masses. They fear the righteous anger and the rebellion of the masses and as a result have no other army to protect them except the one which already represents their class interests: the police. The legal-left is so deep in the mire of reformism and electoral cretinism that they have long ago lost any semblance of revolutionary vigor. They would pass us off as confused and angry youths, but the truth is quite the opposite.

https://redguardsaustin.wordpress.com/2017/01/23/the-legal-left-and-other-toothless-dogs-a-j-20-report/

The Workers' State of Zulanka in TI wrote:I haven't seen anything theory-wise they've put out but I've heard good things about the Black Rose Anarchist Federation as well.
The Red Party is interesting, I'm not sure why they did the name change though. If I remember right a lot of the folks there are coming from Trot traditions but dropped some of the dogmatism, with some MLs as well. I like that they have some public inter-party debate or discussions in their articles, like with the natlib articles (the rebuttal to the pro-natlib article was really weak though!). It reminds me of Kasama a bit if you're familiar with them.


That's what I liked about the Red Party as well, they seem to practice the very "freedom of discussion, unity of action" platitude that many groups proclaim but in practice what happens is that once the upper levels of a party makes a decision the door on that discussion is slammed shut. The Red Party seems to make a committment in practice and in its constitution and program to ensuring the right to disagree with party policy and to have a thorough democracy, whilst preserving the general unity of the movement. In this sense and others it seems like its trying to engage with people where they're at and bring together socialists from different paths to work together, and they recognize that they are not "the party" in any kind of historic sense. I don't know what their name-change was but their current name I think is good regardless as it is very simple but unique as there are no other parties in the USA called "Red Party" and it avoids the usual mixing and matching of the words "socialist, communist, workers, labor, party, league, revolutionary, freedom, etc," that leads to all these parties with sometimes pythonesque differences in their names. (eg. We're the Party of Communists USA (PCUSA) not the Communist Party USA (CPUSA)!)

The Workers' State of Zulanka in TI wrote:These Maoist groups aren't homogeneous. MIM isn't really an active organization AFAIK. The Red Guards in Austin at least (Red Guards LA are ideologically close I believe but I haven't read much on them) don't call themselves a party even. While I'm not uncritical of them, they've done some good work and are very different than most Leninist groups in America; I think many libsoc oriented comrades could find things they like in them.


I apologize that was poor wording on my part, I just happened to be looking at one of the Maoist groups on the list when I made that comment, I think it was the Freedom Road Socialist Organization (both of them lol). That statement was not aimed at Maoist groups in general anymore than it was at any other label. And I have actually also heard good or at least interesting things about the Red Guards in Austin as well.

What I was really getting at is that many groups across the leftist political spectrum, (from Maoists like Freedom Road or RCP, to many of the various Trotskyist groups, to ML sects like PCUSA etc, and also Anarchist and ultra-left groups) while proclaiming to be very different from each other politically in practice are very similar. They are similar in their form of hyperactivism and in seeing their group or specific line as the road to revolution and therefore the goal in practice is to try to capture as many converts to their cause, and other groups are competition even if they will work in loose coalitions ocasionally.

Basically this kind of hyper militancy and fetishizing of certain proclaimed forms of organizing which these sects believe is the only true socialist way to organize (be it "democratic centralism", "Consensus decision-making", "Mass-line", "decentralization/horizontalism", "syndicalism", "vanguard-cadre party" etc,) prevents the dialectical engagement with the changing conditions and level of struggle. One of the things I think Rosa Luxemburg brilliantly explains is how the role of the party or revolutionary minority must be based in the context of the current level of struggle and the material conditions of the time, and how they are changing. Therefore it is not a question of whether decentralization or centralization is the true road to socialism in general, for example, but whether if at this historical moment moving towards one of the other direction or practicing it in one or the other way makes the most sense to raise class conscioussness and the organizing and leadership capacity of the masses.

I won't actually delve into that specific question, but I think what makes me like some of those particular groups like Black Rose Anarchist Federation, Party for Socialism and Liberation, and the Red Party, and to some degree the IWW (obviously they fetishize syndicalism to a large degree but I think they work to try and apply their framework for the 21st century), whether I agree with them completely or not, is that I think they are actually trying in a self-critical and self-conscious way to do that. And I think that separates them from both the hyper militant sectarian groups like RCP, the Sparts, PCUSA, and certain anarchist collectives etc, as well as the reformist opportunist groups like CPUSA, Green Party, Social Democrats USA, Democratic Socialists of America, to some degree the Socialist Party USA (I do think there's some potential here but they definitely fall into the category of electoral reformism) etc. These groups certainly have a long way to go and of course aren't free form these obstacles of sectarianism and reformism but I think they have the biggest potential to move in a direction that has a possibility of not succombing to them.

Looking back I apologize for the USA-centric nature of this discussion, I can't say I'm too familiar with the nitty-gritty of current organizations and parties outside the USA, though I've read fairly positive things about the Communist Party of Canada and I found the writings of a now disbanded Canadian anarchist group called Common Cause to be very insightful and self-critical. Again though, I'd be very interested in hearing other peoples experiences here with socialist, anarchist, and communist groups if they're willing to share.

The Workers' State of Zulanka in TI wrote:I hope I don't come off too harsh, and I have criticized post-leftist anarchists here before, but I think Bob Black points out well how Chomsky himself simply doesn't break with liberalism, certainly not anarchism as a whole (his leaning on natural rights in particular): https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-chomsky-nod#toc3
His debate with Foucault (who at times could've been called an anarchist/anarchistic) is pretty good on this subject as well. Parts of the debate came off as Chomsky pretty explicitly retreating into liberalism next to a real radical.
I myself could only agree with Chomsky's statement if meant in a Hegelian sense, i.e. communism as part of a dialectical movement as the negation of liberalism. I'm pretty sure Chomsky's not a fan of Hegel though!

We have discussed this before on these boards --

I also tend to dislike Hegel. In philosophy, I typically find the analytic tradition to be much more correct than the continental tradition. That said, I have deep respect for the Frankfurt school. And plenty of my favorite figures shouldn't exactly be called "liberal" or even "liberal friendly," such as Antonio Gramsci.

But,

I will need time to read the link you have posted before I can make an intelligent comment.

The United Socialist States of Freien wrote:I am sorry to tell you that, but Communism is not the "continuation and expansion of the beliefs of the Enlightenment liberals". In fact it is exactly the opposite of that: the communist movement wants to create an antithesis to the current order of things and achieve the completion of history by abolishing social classes. Communism is a continuation of "liberalism" (if only the so-called liberals supported liberty) only historically (as long as it is achieved), not ideologically. Also, I don't think that Enlightenment is a period we should be really proud of, as Adorno and Horkheimer showed on their book Dialectic of Enlightenment. But I got to ask, what are some liberals of the Enlightenment you are fond of? In my opinion, 19th century German philosophy was a lot more important and interesting than the Enlightenment.

I feel as though you are judging the Enlightenment thinkers by the standards of what we have learned since their time. Is that a fair assessment? Bakunin is one of the thinkers in Anarchism that I tend to like, but he held some pretty hilariously bad positions. No one gets everything right and everyone is constrained by the historical position they occupy.

So to clarify the thesis I meant to hold, note the following:
1) the Enlightenment and liberalism was a radical response to the Divine Right of Kings and the religiously based monarchies of the early modern era.
2) it sought to destroy the ruling class of that era and replace its rule with the rule of a larger / more inclusive class (namely, the Bourgeoisie).
3) this is largely parallel to what I see those on the Left (with whom I agree) doing today -- the left is a radical response to <the Bourgeois rule we experience today> (insert "European monarchies") that seeks to replace the ruling class with a larger and more inclusive class.

On liberty -- the liberals provided the Bourgeois class with liberty that has previously been reserved for the aristocrats. It is easy to see how Communism can be regarded as a further extension of this -- it strives for the provision of the same liberties to all rather than just for the upper classes. ("True freedom" as opposed to "freedom for slave owners.")

But to respond to your challenge, I'll give you two:
1) Alexis de Tocqueville, for Democracy in America, for the invention of the term "individualism" and labeling it as one of the most dangerous ideals for social progress.
2) John Stuart Mill, for his later-in-life rejection of Capitalism. I don't think there's much more to say about that; obviously JSM held some pretty atrocious views. I think he clung to colonialism, for example, until the end. But on the other hand, he favored expanding the franchise to women and, upon really examining the effects of capitalism (a system he had earlier praised), he realized how negatively it influenced people and suggested the replacement of the capitalist order with a kind of cooperative. (In 1848, by the way, the same year as the Manifesto.)

Asturies-Llion and Mattopilos

I suppose members of NationStates who live in Spain know about the anti-fascist aggression that happened in Murcia recently (a antifa group of ten attacked to nazi woman who months before was attacking inmigrants and LGBT with her fascist group freely without interference of police or justice). But the English-speaking fascist groups are using the video of the aggression to say "group of Muslims attack an European woman" or something similar.
If someone see an account (specially twitter of Fb) doing that, I encourage you to denouncing for manipulation or at least inform to the others about this.

Thanks for your time and sorry if I "sound" like i was using a translator but it's true, hope that everything will be understandable anyway

Mattopilos and Terrajunta

The Soviet Confederation of Uklatvolosk wrote:I suppose members of NationStates who live in Spain know about the anti-fascist aggression that happened in Murcia recently (a antifa group of ten attacked to nazi woman who months before was attacking inmigrants and LGBT with her fascist group freely without interference of police or justice). But the English-speaking fascist groups are using the video of the aggression to say "group of Muslims attack an European woman" or something similar.
If someone see an account (specially twitter of Fb) doing that, I encourage you to denouncing for manipulation or at least inform to the others about this.
Thanks for your time and sorry if I "sound" like i was using a translator but it's true, hope that everything will be understandable anyway

Lol, the fascists

The Federation of North American Communists wrote:
Looking back I apologize for the USA-centric nature of this discussion, I can't say I'm too familiar with the nitty-gritty of current organizations and parties outside the USA, though I've read fairly positive things about the Communist Party of Canada and I found the writings of a now disbanded Canadian anarchist group called Common Cause to be very insightful and self-critical. Again though, I'd be very interested in hearing other peoples experiences here with socialist, anarchist, and communist groups if they're willing to share.

Well, I quite agree with you. I believe these types of organizations can become influential in the modern world.
Now, in Greece, there is quite a significant leftist presence. However, the main communist party hasn't changed anything about it since the 80s, at least, and has become very focused on electoral politics, basically giving up on other forms of struggle and disavowing them, to the point of actively attacking other leftists and protesters in demonstrations. Meanwhile, the anarchist scene is quite split up and there isn't really a group that unites a significant chunk, although there isn't a great amount of infighting, as far as I know, and the anarchists are doing some good. There is some promise among the wider far left, organizations which do and promote promising things, but SYRIZA has really done more damage to the left than the Right ever could and we have to see what happens when it inevitably falls. Right now, things aren't looking promising, to be honest.

The Revolutionary Communes of World Anarchic Union wrote:Well, I quite agree with you. I believe these types of organizations can become influential in the modern world.
Now, in Greece, there is quite a significant leftist presence. However, the main communist party hasn't changed anything about it since the 80s, at least, and has become very focused on electoral politics, basically giving up on other forms of struggle and disavowing them, to the point of actively attacking other leftists and protesters in demonstrations. Meanwhile, the anarchist scene is quite split up and there isn't really a group that unites a significant chunk, although there isn't a great amount of infighting, as far as I know, and the anarchists are doing some good. There is some promise among the wider far left, organizations which do and promote promising things, but SYRIZA has really done more damage to the left than the Right ever could and we have to see what happens when it inevitably falls. Right now, things aren't looking promising, to be honest.


On the note of anarchists, I think the in-fighting is more on the idea of what place protest and rioting has, among other civil disobedience displays. Also, what else we could be doing to actually 'recruit' people, so to speak. I mean, we are great at making ourselves public, but we need to do more in the community to get people to see us as THE force of good. Honestly I cannot see why both cannot exist at the same time. Honestly the talk is about what we can learn about the right that makes them attractive to people, and most of what I can see is that they don't try on act on pure rationality, because people aren't purely rational - we need logos and pathos.

The Soviet Confederation of Uklatvolosk wrote:I suppose members of NationStates who live in Spain know about the anti-fascist aggression that happened in Murcia recently (a antifa group of ten attacked to nazi woman who months before was attacking inmigrants and LGBT with her fascist group freely without interference of police or justice). But the English-speaking fascist groups are using the video of the aggression to say "group of Muslims attack an European woman" or something similar.
If someone see an account (specially twitter of Fb) doing that, I encourage you to denouncing for manipulation or at least inform to the others about this.
Thanks for your time and sorry if I "sound" like i was using a translator but it's true, hope that everything will be understandable anyway


And the media manipulated, how? Antena 3 cut the video:

https://twitter.com/ruantifa_/status/823917828696850433

Complete camera video:

http://videos-cdn.laopiniondemurcia.es/multimedia/videos/2017/01/23/114422/agresion-joven-murcia-camaras-seguridad-1_m.mp4

As you see they hide the part that the nazi jumps on the other girl. If the other antifascists let them go 1 versus 1, she could have stabbed the other girl. Plus if she did that before with immigrants and LGBT people, she doesn't deserve the same mercy WHEN not doing anything, would lead to more violence and death.

Major capitalist media is defending this. And a girl who studies at the university is harassed by fascists because they confuse her with one of the antifascists.

But also, they manipulate with headlines as "antifascists beating a young woman". Instead of antifascists beating a nazi who committed crimes before and the police does nothing. If the police does nothing there's no other option than doing this, or other people would die and would be beaten. Also, if people can't defend themselves with the law and the police only do a few operations to look progressive. And now is when you think if this is a fascist state with a veil of democracy. In any case, fascism is generated by capitalism when they focus the problems on other people of our class, like communists, anarchists, immigrants, LGTB+ people, etc. instead of going to the root of the problem. And she lied saying that the antifascists stroke her for wearing the Spanish colours.

http://www.lahaine.org/est_espanol.php/la-chica-agredida-en-murcia
http://kaosenlared.net/la-chica-agredida-en-murcia-seria-una-nazi-que-estaria-implicada-en-al-menos-una-docena-de-ataques-a-antifascistas-inmigrantes-y-personas-lgbt/
http://kaosenlared.net/un-grupo-de-extrema-derecha-tilda-de-simpatizante-de-nuestro-colectivo-a-la-joven-agredida-en-murcia/
http://www.lacronicadelpajarito.es/region/policia-cree-que-un-enfrentamiento-entre-antifascistas-y-neonazis-fue-detonante-paliza-a
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HfNTqpFFDwU

Also, there are fascist groups mixed with catholicism, the fascist monuments and streets are there; because the transition was designed by the elites, it wasn't a rupture.

Do you think socialfascist theory makes sense? Capitalism and fascism are held by manipulation.

"And she lied saying that the antifascists stroke her for wearing the Spanish colours." I clarify this part not as confirmation of what she has said, but as what media is saying.

Forum View

by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics