We are in dire need for a Fifth International

Socialism is in crisis. No progress has been made in thirty years. Cuba is stagnating in its transition to socialism, North Korea is continually fending off attacks from the imperialists, the Ba'athist commitment to socialism seems to be waning, communist guerillas are failing one by one, while reactionary revisionists managed to gain control in China, Laos and Vietnam, selling their party to capitalism and the bourgeoisie. Venezuela's attempt to transition its economy to socialism is stagnating due to constant attempts by the imperialists to overthrow the legitimate socialist government of the country.

Sectarianism killed the Comintern. While the imperialists were standing united, petty sectarianism was dividing the international proletariat. The Marxist/anarchist split being unfortunate enough, the Marxists had to further split themselves up into weakened and disorganized groups over petty disagreements that only served to helped the international bourgeoisie to significantly damage our revolutionary movement and deliver a serious flow to the revolutionary proletarian struggle.

There has never been a more pressing need for a united anti-capitalist conference as today. Capitalists are damaging the world ecosystem and fail to prevent the coming environmental collapse because of their greed, socialism is being destroyed, little by little, the international bourgeoisie is getting richer at an unprecedented pace. Now is not the time for socialist infighting. We need to unite in our struggle against capitalism. Anarchists, Marxist-Leninists, Maoists, left-communists, Trotskyists, Hoxhaists, Communalists, democratic socialists, Ba'athists, Jucheists, national Bolsheviks, radical ecologists and feminists, Christian socialists and communists, Islamic socialists struggling in concert against the bourgeoisie. All of us, in a single meeting, discussing, planning and strategizing together to better against counter-revolutionary forces.

We need a new revolutionary socialist movement. We need a synthesis socialist meeting. We need the Fifth International. Without it, we are doomed.

Attached: Fifth International Emblem.png (657x1215 57.54 KB, 110.61K)

ok I'm game
/Letfpol/ist International when?

I too wish there was a new Montreux Fascist conference but what can I say, neoliberalism destroyed everything

So I guess we're just going to welcome any random right wing ideologies into the fold.

True, although I doubt people who identify as "jucheists" really exist outside NK so who cares
Ba'athists, nazbolists and Asserists on the other hand should definitely be banned

Ideally, we're gonna need anyone who is serious about abolishing capitalism and establish socialism. This would be a pragmatic and hopefully temporary alliance out of necessity.

but user, this means different things to leftcoms and MLs for example, how are you going to find a common language?
on the level of ideas I approve of this idea of extremely broad anti-capitalist front though. Maybe the key would be to strictly define only capitalism and then try and collect all anti-capitalist forces (by that definition of capitalism) into one political bloc?

But Ba'athists don't even support the abolishment of capitalism do they? And nazbol is basically just commie-flavored fascism, might as well invite asserists or actual fascists then because they're nominally opposed to capitalism

Internationalism/Comintern was a mistake.

Global left-wing organisation may only exist on equal and pragmatic terms.

I'm close to certain the synthesis can only be made within the meta-confines of "libertarian communism". It and only it contains both Marxism and anarchism. With communization theory it seems to already be happening. Arguably one could add a compatible, libertarian socialist "socialization" theory that synthesizes socialization efforts of anarcho-collectivists & -syndicalists as well as Marxist Deleonists and leftcoms. I don't see why we couldn't include Communalists in the mix too.

To be clear; "socialization theory" would supply stage theory to communization theory.

Apparently they do.

It is, but at least they want to establish socialism,

Asserists might be able to join. MIGHT. But while they are arguably socialists, they are still staunchly anti-communist, so it might not work. Hitlerists and Italian-style fascists can fuck off though. They're just succdems on steroids with an ultranationalist agenda.

Attached: Eat the Right.jpg (1102x1200, 144.19K)

That's kind of the point. Killing capitalism is a pretty pragmatic goal.

what's your source for that? Afaik they support some form of mixed economy. And then I'm not even talking about the fact that they're full-on nationalists and in some cases borderline fascists.
Why not demsocs/succdems then? Seriously I'd MUCH rather include them than asserists.
Also I could get behind what is saying; an International for all marxists and anarchists excluding the highly authoritarian ones. This would still mean a broad amalgamation of different ideologies without including those that are IMO simply detrimental to our causes.

(on second thought just demsocs, forget about sucdems lol)

Facilitating Socialism, rather than killing Capitalism, perhaps, is. But can there be a mutual effort in that regard?

Most Soviet Comintern activities were counterproductive both for the Soviet Union and for socialism. Independent and sovereign movements, on the other hand, really did entrench leftist ideas in their societies.

Apparently, you're right. But they're still anti-imperialists, so they might be useful. Demsocs are included. Not succdems. Succdems are known to be imperialist and capitalist collaborators. Succdems and just "progressive" liberals who would side with the imperialist international bourgeoisie, like they always do.

oh I looked over demsocs in your OP. And agreed on succdems. Still I'm sceptical that anything productive will come from including groups as soon as they're anti-imperialist.

Wasn't there some talk about how a new international could look at last years DSA national convention? I know thats probably not what you want, the DSA at the head of an international, but its something I guess. I think some PODEMOS people took part in that conversation.

Funny you'd post with a Maoist flag, considering Maoists are always super sectarian when it comes to a united ML front (nothing against Maoism, just my personal experience).

And yeah, I agree with you. Most arguments these tendencies have are literally just historical oddities, such as the split between Hoxhaists and Maoists, or even the split between Trotskysts and Leninists, however, there has been so much bad blood between those two its gonna be hard to bring them together. But yeah, we need to leave the 20th century behind us. Splitting over something that Mao has said 60 years ago which group X interprets differently than group Y is beyond retarded.

Holy shit Un-Ironically read Julius "Feels>Reals" Evola

Internationales dont work
Seeā€¦.
The first workingmans association
The Second internationale
The Cominform
The 4th Internationale
All of the 4ths spin offs

Throwing a few hundred parties in a room and telling them to just work things out dosent work

Almost all of those thinks the other groups don't want to abolish capitalism or won't establish socialism. A Libcom union or Leninist unite front would be difficult enough to hold together, trying to combine both groups along with national liberation and flavors of socdem will be even more difficult to stop from busting apart.

Ironically enough, most of the world got socialist once the Comintern was dissolved (Eastern Europe, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, etc.) - what you are saying is true, every country has such different conditions it's much better to have every communist party figure out stuff on their own instead of giving them some dogmatic set of rules from above and reduce internationalist work to mutual cooperation, but no centralized internationalism.

Just like the Naziposter I use this to pull a reaction, I am a Salazarist but I don't understand why there should be a conflict between fascists and monarchists.

In the end it comes to the choice of the leader and if we apply the works of Aquinas we could have one lead the "ground" like while another rules the "spiritual" life.

Anyways , BUF , Falangists , Portuguese Integralists , Italian Fascists ,
Metaxism , etc.

We all have a common goal and we saw that throught the actions of the first and second half of the 20th century

Ah no no wait don't actually respond to me here I don't want to derail this stuff, hit me up on the /containment/ if you want to.

Choose no more than one.
Oh, that needed clarification? I think that you should be the secretary for the first assembly.

But yeah, any wide left front that's not staunchly anti-tankie would end up a complete joke. At least liberals are easy to convert.

Oh so special snowflake Portugese fascism plus muh Christian values and colonialism?

unironic question, has evola written anything worth reading for leftists or is it all spooky pseudometaphysical fascist apologetics?

No but if your a Monarchist LARP'er its pretty cool
Basically yes thus "Feels>Reals"
He thinks Fascism is to progressive and modernist and that the world needs to return to some mythical pre-enlightenment Feudal tier utopia

Agreed man well put
And also totally agree OP some sort of international is needed

monarchist/fascist LARPing is the correct way to browse Zig Forums so maybe should check it out for that purpose

The material conditions are worsening and capitalism is slowly but surely failing more people in the first world. There will be a collapse in a western country of 1929 proportions it's just a matter of time. As for left unity, it'll never happen but we should at least all tolerate each other in a revolutionary scenario. We've all just got to be ready to pile in the first western country to truly collapse economically and start from there.

The anti-imperialism of Ba'athism is directly influenced by Marxist-Leninist theory.

And it's a shame. Sectarianism has destoyed the left. First it was the Marxists and the anarchists, then it was the Leninists and the orthodox, then it was the Trotskyists and the Stalinists, then the Maoists and the Stalinists, the the Hoxhaists and the Maoists, and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Leftsts divide each other over the slightiest disagreement. It's sadening. We can't unite the proletariat in these conditions.

Attached: Crying communist Wojak.jpg (675x808, 29.77K)

maybe i'm just a pessimist but our dream is dead. Capitalism will win, just like cancer wins. it's going to destroy the earth and until it does so it will continue to make our lives as miserable as possible. We don't exist to overthrow it anymore, just to throw a wrench in it's operations, make it more difficult. That is the 5th international, sabotage.

At least between Marxists and anarchists you can identify some seriously different principles, philosophies and worldviews, whereas the split between Maoists and Hoxhaists revolves arround what Mao/Hoxha said in 1960-something in chapter XY of pamphlet YX and whether or not that's revisionist.

Honestly, for me, it's socialism or barbarism. If we can't establish socialism, then we shall still destroy capitalism at any cost, up to and including, at the cost of civilization itself and the survival of humankind as a species.

What if we called it "The Internetional"?

Anarchists and Marxists in the first international split over participation in elections and bad blood between Marx and Bakunin. Even if we could write off the bad blood issues, which have gotten worse in some ways, how would we reconcile radically differing praxis into one organization? An argument can be made for various anarchists and non-participatory Marxists uniting or Leninist derivatives forming a wide Leninist party, but it seems that a wider group like the proposed 5th international would be doomed to split to or be ineffective.

Each praxis has its strength. Compromises would have to be made in order to arrive to a common strategy.

Different tendencies can apply their different praxes with support of the organization (so long as they don't interfere with each other directly) and we'll see which ones get actual results.
s c i e n c e

How? I'm not trying to be a prick, but the differences in praxis seem irreconcilable and not something that a compromise can be reached over.

Interfering with each other is an issue assuming groups are operating in the same areas. Anarchists currently clash with the KKE and I see it being very likely that similar conflicts play out between groups over participation, protest, or other actions. In such a conflict, who does the organization support and what keeps the side not being supported from splitting off? "Actual results" is also an issue given that some think having a territory for over a certain length of time is a success while others think if capitalism hasn't been abolished then it was a failure.

That's why there would be yearly summits. To discuss and determine what works and what doesn't.

But when these groups are working on different conceptions of what "works" means, how does that work? I mean to this day we still have discussions on whether the USSR and ML was a failure or not based on it existing for a long time vs it not abolishing capitalism worldwide.

Fellas. I propose the following: anti-Left Socialism.

The Left as a political concept has become irrevocably subverted by the Neoliberal establishment. It is a vehicle of compromise with cuckdems, moderates and rainbow Capitalists.

Even worse, a lot of Communists nowadays seem to put being Leftists, comcerned with vague, morally-loaded concepts such as "inequality" or "oppression", above being Socialists, whose only objective should be the destruction -not the improvement- of Bourgeois society.

In this light, Leftists have become just as misguided and impotent as the people from the Right. Because just like how right-wingers naively believe Capitalism cares in the slightest about their "values" or "traditions", so do Leftists think they can create a tolerant society under the current mode of production. In the end, what they don't want is Communism, bjt rather a Capitalism with a human face.

It's no wonder they expend so many of their time and effort allied with radlibs and Liberal Identitarians against cliques of an equally powerless far-right, while the Bourgeois state remains at large. Likewise, any of the potential avenues that could potentially expand the Socialist cause (Anti-Consumerism/Pro Folk Culture, National Sovereignity, Anti-Hedonism, the very real economic concerns of immigration under Capitalism) are ignored, or even opposed out of pure Contrarianism towards the ephemeral Right, instead of being towards the Capitalist system.

In this Neoliberal limbo. The only real options are the stagnatimg status quo, and thlse in favor of material and historical progress. You shouldn't the label of "Leftist" either, it is label originating from Bourgeois Parliamentarianism, and whom Marx and Lenin immediately rejected as such.

Attached: DbK7q4xW4AE4uM_.jpeg (900x600, 50.82K)

Go away Nazbol.

Nice Argument faggot. How am I nazbol?

Shove it up your ass where it belongs.