What is my plan - READ -

[Nero Superbus]

To settle things out as some members do not quite know what's happening i will held unlimited powers regarding the Internationale for 2-4 weeks, when i will resign.

Why 2-4 weeks? I will make the constitution work for a while, and when i resign as leader, the congress will be able to change the articles inside it.

For an organization to be strong, it's need a strong base. Sure, i don't have anything against people talking and saying their view, but we need a good basis of the Internationale and i have engaged in this action to do it.

To explain some complains:
1) Money makes the world go round. For the Internationale to work and make it allocate money to help establishments of Communes, we need money. And we cannot rely on donations or trust in that matter.

2) We cannot rely on members that they will do what is right. We need a legal constitution and punishments. We need order. And a monthly fee, to ensure the flow of cash in our accounts. What happens if one month, no one can donate? We will lose supporters and all actions will be delayed.

3) Who am I and how suddenly have i taken care of Internationale? I am an upset member of the ex-Internationale. Some weeks ago, i signed in the Communist Party of eRomania and later took over it and i wanted some money to establish a first commune. I went to the Internationale forums, i posted my request if the Internationale can help me and after almost 1 month of waiting i receive the answer that i should raise my own money. Or i haven't imagined that the Internationale exists to tell its Communist party members to raise their own money. Some money or even a loan someone should have gave me,i would have been happy. Anyway. that is why i decided to establish a new Internationale, with a legal constitution, a legal undenied rule of a Congress over it, and to prevent future things as i happened and dissapointed members.

To continue, i will like to annnounce that i will put the Internationale's Constitution i made in power starting on this Thursday, 30th July, to work for 2-4 weeks under my supervision. After those 2-4 weeks, i will resign my position as leader and become a normal member of the Congress. Then, the Congress will be able to vote article changes in the constitution and will be the organ with absolute power in the Internationale.

All i ask is to trust me, believe me, i currently struggle with my time to supervise the Internationale, so the sooner i will become a normal congress member, the better. After my term will end, i hope i will have changed something and make it work non-stop. If not, then, i think i will perhaps quit the Internationale.(what's the point to be in a non-working organization)

[Maksim Chuikov]

The reason why some parties don't want to give or loan money is because they feel there is not a need for spreading ourselves out anymore. The reason why I objected in giving you money was because I felt you don't have the sufficient experience to run a commune properly. Here's a third reason: it's easier and much more efficient to focus on the existing communes and upgrade them to 'super-communes' so that these communes can then later-on export the commune business to other ecountries. We're wasting time by creating 1-5 companies in every single ecountry.

I've never even heard of something like the Internationale creating communes, that sounds absurd. It's a completely different thing if the Internationale loans or sponsors money into parties for creating communes or buying weapons to 'fend off a foreign invasion.

Your sudden actions of creating a new Internationale and proclaiming yourself the leader of that organization has upset many parties. The French communist party has created its own Quackmunist Internationale (source: see the PCP section on the eUK forums). These radical decisions ignoring the orthodox methods may very well divide the international erevolutionary movement, which is going to set us back by weeks if not months.

Yours,
M. Chuikov

[Mannimarco]

The reason why some parties don't want to give or loan money is because they feel there is not a need for spreading ourselves out anymore. The reason why I objected in giving you money was because I felt you don't have the sufficient experience to run a commune properly. Here's a third reason: it's easier and much more efficient to focus on the existing communes and upgrade them to 'super-communes' so that these communes can then later-on export the commune business to other ecountries. We're wasting time by creating 1-5 companies in every single ecountry.

I've never even heard of something like the Internationale creating communes, that sounds absurd. It's a completely different thing if the Internationale loans or sponsors money into parties for creating communes or buying weapons to 'fend off a foreign invasion.

Your sudden actions of creating a new Internationale and proclaiming yourself the leader of that organization has upset many parties. The French communist party has created its own Quackmunist Internationale (source: see the PCP section on the eUK forums). These radical decisions ignoring the orthodox methods may very well divide the international erevolutionary movement, which is going to set us back by weeks if not months.

Yours,
M. Chuikov

I agree with everything Maksim has said.

[Fredrick Engels]

Adding on to what Maksim has said, why do you think giving you dictatorial powers will give us a strong base? I would think the exact opposite would be true, us working together would give us a stronger base. After looking at all your points, I don't see any reason why all the power would have to be centralized to you, unless of course you were trying to push through unpopular things.

[Mannimarco]

Adding on to what Maksim has said, why do you think giving you dictatorial powers will give us a strong base? I would think the exact opposite would be true, us working together would give us a stronger base. After looking at all your points, I don't see any reason why all the power would have to be centralized to you, unless of course you were trying to push through unpopular things.

I agree with this, let's not let one member get too much power. The SCP is going against this.

[johnobrow]

I am inclined to agree with my comrades above. I fear that you will create the exact opposite to what you want. Maximum involvement is needed right from the start, otherwise you will inadvertently kill the Internationale. I also don't see what it is you need to do exactly. We don't need to be starting communes, we need to have the congress meeting and have an approved, working constitution as soon as possible.

[Nero Superbus]

Ok i have read all arguments and see you have a point. Problem is certain topics have been voted in the last meeting such as a proportional party system and now members are rejecting the constitution. The fact that i wanted a central authority in the beginning was because we voted on some facts and we hardly took 3 decisions in 3 hours. Anyway, i see that most are uncontent, so i propose some solutions:

1)Take each article of the Constitution and debate it in the Congress Forum with all the members of the forum with the right to vote on it (or by the one-party-one-vote system)

2)Establish meetings in the chat to live-vote and debate.

I say we should choose 1) cause not all members have time for live meetings. What do you guys say? If you approve with that plan i can create some sticky threads about each articles related and then we can leave them here for 1-2 weeks of debate and finally we will modify the constitution and start the work of the Internationale.

[johnobrow]

Definitely option 1 comrade.

[Fredrick Engels]

Ok i have read all arguments and see you have a point. Problem is certain topics have been voted in the last meeting such as a proportional party system and now members are rejecting the constitution. The fact that i wanted a central authority in the beginning was because we voted on some facts and we hardly took 3 decisions in 3 hours. Anyway, i see that most are uncontent, so i propose some solutions:

This meeting that you just suddenly called on one day where not even everybody was there. Can I even have proof that this happened and see the actual votes? That wouldn't be too much to ask, would it.

say we should choose 1) cause not all members have time for live meetings. What do you guys say? If you approve with that plan i can create some sticky threads about each articles related and then we can leave them here for 1-2 weeks of debate and finally we will modify the constitution and start the work of the Internationale.

Yes let's actually debate the articles of the Constitution, I agree. Not 1-2 weeks, if it takes longer than it will. What my question is, during this period do you plan on having all the power like you talked about in the first post?

On a side note, why did you type this in black?

[Maksim Chuikov]

It shouldn't take 1-2 weeks. The PCP has put forward a series of changes needed and so far it seems the SFP and CPSU support them. Perhaps we should just highligt the important articles in the constitution proposed by Nero.

Yours,
M. Chuikov

[Fredrick Engels]

It shouldn't take 1-2 weeks. The PCP has put forward a series of changes needed and so far it seems the SFP and CPSU support them. Perhaps we should just highligt the important articles in the constitution proposed by Nero.

Yours,
M. Chuikov

I agree it shouldn't, but if for some odd reason it does take longer, then we can't just stop discussing. I just don't think we should put a cap on that. We should skim over the whole thing and ruthlessly critique it, then it would better. Think Gotha Programme.

[Maksim Chuikov]

The constitution does not involve any serious plans for international economical cooperations. So far it's only laying out the foundation of our organization. But if that's what the SFP wants, we should respect that and follow their wishes.

[Alex Lorre]

1 party 1 vote is how it should go. Each party is supposed to have one official representative correct? Well each one of them gets made into the first congress and then they all vote on issues amongst each other. However they ask their party for input before voting so that they are true representatives. Does this not sound fair? To start with a new meeting needs to take place in which as many representatives as possible are in attendance. If this takes a while to schedule so be it. Its not like it will set us back any more than we already are right? So everyone needs to list the hours they will most likely be available. If you don't have a regular schedule of computer activity then just say so and wait and see what everyone else seems to agree on and see if you can make that time. Or temporarily appoint a new representative that can make it but who is also trustworthy. Or perhaps it should be open to everyone. Just some suggestions to get things started people I'm not a representative I just wanna see some unity.

[Maksim Chuikov]

Each party should definetly have more then one representive to the Internationale (to avoid the timezone problem), but only one vote for each party.

[Fredrick Engels]

Each party should definetly have more then one representive to the Internationale (to avoid the timezone problem), but only one vote for each party.

Agreed .

[Maksim Chuikov]

Each party should definetly have more then one representive to the Internationale (to avoid the timezone problem), but only one vote for each party.

Agreed .

Has the SFP got any European players? Most of us are from Europe, so it may get a bit tricky for you American fellows.

[Fredrick Engels]

Each party should definetly have more then one representive to the Internationale (to avoid the timezone problem), but only one vote for each party.

Agreed .

Has the SFP got any European players? Most of us are from Europe, so it may get a bit tricky for you American fellows.

I don't know of anybody that is European in the SFP. What's going to get tricky? Not everybody speaks English right.

[Robert Bayer]

The reason that the vast majority of parties chose proportional representation when we took a vote on it is that it is the most egalitarian approach. The fact of the matter is that proportional representation allows the individual members of parties in the international to have a relatively equal amount of say in the workings of this organization. To have "equal" representation regardless of party size is, in fact, unequal.

[johnobrow]

The reason that the vast majority of parties chose proportional representation when we took a vote on it is that it is the most egalitarian approach. The fact of the matter is that proportional representation allows the individual members of parties in the international to have a relatively equal amount of say in the workings of this organization. To have "equal" representation regardless of party size is, in fact, unequal.

But what are they going to disagree on? A party only needs more than one vote if there is disagreement within it. I don't know about your's by my party comrades tend to agree with each other, and when they don't we vote. A large congress is impractical, inefficient and doomed to failure. With PR we'll simply have a dictatorship of the PCP and SFP. This is unfair on the parties from smaller nations. I see no good reason for PR. One party, one vote.

[Sponsored content]