Revive the International.

http://www.zcommunications.org/newinternational.htm

So apparently people are trying to create a new socialist international.

http://www.zcommunications.org/zspace/users?category_slug=participatory-socialists-intl&page=1

They're all hipsters.

Nobody except for those people actually cares.

And by the way, 1917 endorsers isn't very impressive. Filthy reds trying too hard.

Hey man it's not just red anymore, it's red and black. It means a whole different thing man.

It's actually green, pink, red, black, white and yellow. They hog all the colors. I, myself, go for a nice navy blue.

Why do another Internationale? There are many Internationales out there.

That´s the problem with marxism. They are so radical, that they create so many divisions between themselfs (leninists, stalinists, maoists, hoxaists, jucheists, trotskysts, social-democrats, democratic socialists, etc.).

But that´s good. Because if the ideology was really sucessfull, the world was fucked.

Why do you need a new one?
The old one is still great.

Why are social democrats grouped in with Marxism?

Wouldn't really help his argument against the status quo if they weren't.

Well apparently the 3 anarchist internationals, 21 trot internationals and the dozen left-communist and marxist-leninist maoist...etc. internationals werent good enough.

ps: they seem to be linked to chavez, which leads me to suspect they are gonna be something like a bunch of "radical" social democrats, democratic socialists and anti-globalization types.

Yeah, because the Right is soooo homogeneous....

Huh, there is a guy from Argentina.

Well, the right is pretty much divided into Keynesians and Liberals.

It's not that simple, but I lack the knowledge of economy (or I don't remember,rather said) like to explain further more.

We are talking about marxist Internationales, and you just come out with that. I´m not a "rightist".

Social-democracy is influeced by marxism. The difference between social-democracy and other marxist ideologies is that it believes that to reach the "perfect" socialist society should be trougth a democratic process, and not with a "dictactorship of the proletariat". But still, social-democrats, like Marx, want to reach socialism.
Soical-democracy is a reformist marxist ideology. It rejects some marxist ideals, but is still marxist.

Weren't you a libertarian?

Yes, but we don´t beleive in th old political spectrum. We don´t consider ourselfs "right wingers". Right wingers are the conservatives.

This is our political spectrum, the Nolan Chart:

No again that is democratic socialism, social democracy is different. Social democracy has no end goal of reaching communism or socialism. It also does not try to make the means of productions owned by the workers. The economics of social democracy is regulation not complete control by the workers.

Interesting, I will search more about this nolan thingy when I finish the shit ton chemistry and maths exercises.

Haven't we already explained whole "hipsters of today =/= the revolutionaries of yesterday" thing to you already? Like, fucking 10,000 times by my count. I mean, if you were coming at this from an objectivist point of view, then sure. You could group them all under the Mystics of Muscle category; but this sounds more like spicy buzzwords and rhetoric then rational deliberation.
W/e. If you didn't listen last time, then I probably shouldn't expect you to listen this time.