SPARK

of the MHOC

Communities: National, Social, or International?By /u/Zoto888The concept of a community is generally viewed in a positive light. So people may speak approvingly of community involvement in some project, or community support for some idea. You may live in a thriving community, or one that is undergoing community regeneration. But what is a community? Is it a collection of individuals residing in a specific area? Do they share a common culture, history, or religion? Or are they joined by something else, something that transcends national boundaries of identity, and are they instead all members of something far more material?Now, we can speak of the Jewish Community, the Gay Community, and of the Business Community, but these groups hold no common aspects other than that specified. Nothing unites a homosexual Jewish pauper in the United States with a homosexual Jewish business leader in Israel but two aspects of their individuality. Neither one can make statements on behalf of such a community, for they all are separate.The former set of communities (that is, those established on the basis of nationality) shares nothing in common with the latter set (social communities, such as the LGBT community). The first is the representation of those within a given locality, the second within a given social grouping. Does any community deserve to be thought of as a more or less legitimate and autonomous entity? Certainly not. Yet we insist upon separating the national communities into distinct bodies, with common governance, while the others are left intermingled within various other populations.This is a good thing!, I hear you claim. People should not be labelled, bundled together, and shipped out like a common product. Diversity is what makes Britain British! I agree! We should not segregate people based on their social affiliation, be it sexuality, wealth, or anything else. Then why should we do so on the basis of nationality? This concept has no real basis.Communities are created by the sum of individual relations: indeed, all of society is nothing but that. However, there is one community that claims to transcend all of these limitations and borders: the supposed International Community. This is not a community of international peoples, however, but of international nations. Specifically, it is the sum of the relations of Western hegemonic heads of state, not the individuals which make up said states. This is no more a community than the scientific community, with nothing in common but a thirst for power and domination!Whenever you read or hear about the international community, you should ask yourself who it really includes: does it perhaps mean a tiny but extremely powerful and influential group of people who do indeed see themselves as distinct in some respect from the larger society? Of course, it is nice for them if they can pass themselves off as representing the consensus of the worlds population. But only we, the Communist Party, stand for the creation of a truly international community. We can respect the existence of varying intermingled communities within one greater society, but we cannot stand for the hegemonic dominance of one such community over another.The Communist Partys Object speaks of the means of production being owned and controlled by and in the interest of the whole community. This means what it says: all the people of the Earth will own the land, factories, offices, and so on in common. We will form a true community, one with shared interests but not distinct from or in opposition to anyone else or any other group. The global community of World Socialism will truly be a positive notion, offering support and opportunity for all those who are part of it!

The Second Party Congress, by /u/Cae388The Second Congress of the Communist Party was called under the petition of five members of the party. The recent and unexpected call for the general elections at the same time filled the party with excitementaccording to the previous election dates, it was almost literally Christmas come early. While the other parties looked under the big tree for some interesting gift, though, we got an additional toy in our stockings.The Congress announcement was met with the sudden eruption of proposals and legislation. Members with any position on anything participated in the truly democratic process and submitted their positions for the proletarian party. Throughout the party, release; throughout the party, victory. Democracy in motion. All around the quiet party forum of the preceding weeks abounded with activity.In all, twelve resolutions were put in front of the party, from mundane term lengths to a new nomenclature system to Red Brigades and a Proposal to End the British Empire. The items were carefully debated, and, in the end, about ten of the proposals passed in full. Equality was added to the party program, the British Empire was ended, and Red Brigades were added to the constitution. The surprise, however, was not the amount of additions, but of plain substitutions and edits that were proposed and passed.Our party alone is the sole party in the Model Country with such a faith in democracy, and, more importantly, the working people of this nation, because our party is the radical extension of their will. Our basis in the populace at large is the basis of true emancipation. The victory here of the people is also the party's victory, as the more democratic they become, the more devoted to the cause and directed our Vanguard party becomes.The revolution is here, in our hands, the people's hands. Our party has a duty to them, and the party congresses are a fulfillment of this duty. Thank you, to everyone who voted.

The Midlands Riots, by Defense Commissar /u/Cae388The shocking violence in the Midlands was met with the shocking actions of the Tories, and out of it the Model nation learned three things: that the Communist party is willing to take action to work for the people, that the government will lie about this in the face of obvious evidence, and that the Tory government is completely inept at meeting the needs of their people.The events began early: at 19:27 the riots began and soon turned violent. The BBC crews beaten, Police overwhelmed, they stormed the Council House and kidnapped the Green MP for Coventry, RandomPhotographer, and held her hostage. The Communist Party was divided, unsure of whether to support or oppose the rising workers, and most specifically, whether to send in the newly formed Red Brigades.As the riots spread to London, the tension increased ten fold. Then the Squadristi were sent in.The Squadristi are the militant arm of the BIP, raised for the event. Coming into the midst of the fighting, the set about to make their presence known. All was chaos. Inside the Communist party, the point of no return had been reached. The Red Brigades had to be sent in to keep the peace. By unanimous decision of all members present, the Red Brigades had to perform this function, and they defaulted the organization of this effort into the hands of the Defense Commissar, Cae388.He released a statement to all parties: The Communist Party, through the action of the Defense Committee, has decided to move to retain peace in this situation. We oppose, resist, and will deny the reactionary elements. Our party will move in force to oppose them. The Red Brigades have been hastily assembled as a peacekeeping force, and will oppose further violence while helping peace negotiations and oppose reactionary provocateurs. As the Defence Commissar, I have taken responsibility for their actions. And with that, the Communist effort began in earnest.Immediately they set about stopping any developing racial violence, assisted medical staff, and held off brooding physical violence where possible. Unarmed, a miss-statement by Comrade G0VERNMENT lead to brooding agitation. The Tories demanded the Red Brigades fall back. An Ultimatum was made demanding their surrender in an hour or the politicians responsible would be indicted for conspiring to commit Terrorism. This came after the party made it clear that the Brigades acted only as medical aides, facilitating the NHS and other relief forces.The Tories then explained their full plans:First, order Social media companies to remove any accounts openly affiliated with the rioters. (So we won't be getting any more updates on the situation from social media), any press releases from any state organisations or state employees involved in the situation have to go through me personally). GCHQ will be used to track and hopefully identify from social media anyone involved in the situation.

Second, use SCO19 (Depending on which force is most readily available), as far as we know these individuals are not heavily armed and non-lethal weaponry will be used if possible, although this depends on last minute intelligence (which could involve a change to live fire arms), to deal with the hostage situation. They will be used to rescue the MP and detain violent ringleaders.

Third, authorize the use of Water cannons and bring in Riot Police from the Metropolitan Police in London.

Fourth, Once areas are clear of danger, Fire services from neighbouring regions will be brought in to support the Fire services based in the West Midlands.

Fifth, Contingency planning for further action at last resort if the situation escalates further, which would be kept from the public eye (and indeed, this House), may or may not involve the preemptive mobilization of the Territorial Army (Army Reserve)

Sixth, call a state of emergency in West Midlands.

Along with a series of threatening edits, the intent of the Tory government was made clear. Democracy was suspended. The Geneva Convention as well, after the Brigades were banned from aiding Medical staff. All of this came after the action was already out of hand. The Tories followed up any questions of authority with Sucks for you. The complete failure of the Tory government necessitated the action of the Red Brigades, only exacerbated by the appearance of the Squadristi. Of course the Communist party in particular was singled out, though Albrecht Von Roon himself stated the Blackshirts were genuinely armed. The Tory government has shown from their first test in governance that they are incapable, and the Red Brigades are here to serve the workers. The party lines are drawn, the distinction is clear, and there is no turning back now.

On the State of the Workers Opposition, by /u/CGracchusThere has been much rumbling in the MHOC about the Communist Partys decision to enter into a coalition with the Celtish Workers League. We have faced two major criticisms for our proclamation of alliance with the CWL, both of which will be shown to be false in this article: first, that we have betrayed our constituents by not seeking a coalition sizable enough for government or even official opposition status and that we have betrayed our own ideology by working with nationalists.As to the first claim, that the largest party by membership and by voter turnout shirked its responsibility to its voters by not seeking a governing coalition, I will point to thenameof the party for which they voted. Anyone voting for a communist party wants to see the interests of the working class represented in a consistently anti-capitalist manner. For us to turn to the parties of capital, even to well-meaning reformist parties in support of sweeping social democratic changes, would be a complete betrayal of the workers who have placed their trust in us.This betrayal would be an even deeper knife in the back if we were to abandon another workers party opportunistically for the promise of a bit more power. While the CWL is officially Titoist, a market oriented derivative of Marxism-Leninism, it has been the stance of the Communist Party since its inception to represent a truly united left. Our party welcomes Marxists and non-Marxist socialists alike, from anarchists to ultra-leftists and from Trotskyists to Marxist-Leninists and for everyone else in between. The Communist Party is as big-tent as a party can be, and were certainly not opposed to getting even larger! Anyone worthy to fly the red flag should feel at home with the Communist Party, and the CWL has proven itself to do just that. We simply cannot in good conscience work in this House without them, and if other parties with whom we could have coalitions are unwilling to work with the CWL, for mistakes they may have made, then so be it we maintain that a bloc of over a quarter of the House of Commons will allow us to push a workers agenda, and we feel that doing so with our coalition partners will allow us to best represent the class conscious of the workers of this country.The other question that has been brought up, and was indeed the subject of great debate within our party, was the nationalist question. How can an openly internationalist party that decries nationalism as dangerous and divisive the workers movement be willing to work with an openly nationalist party? This hits on one of the big debates in the history of the left, a disagreement between two of our biggest theoretical and practical hitters, Rosa Luxemburg and V.I. Lenin. To save you a long and boring lecture on a subject with which you certainly arent interested, Ill give you the quick-n-dirty version: Luxemburg thought that nationalism was always bad, while Lenin thought it could sometimes be good if it was expressed by oppressed groups. Because of our partys dedication to democracy in all spheres of life and passion for consensus-building, we debated the issue from all sides, and eventually we came to what we feel is the right conclusion that working with the CWL is emblematic of our solidarity with oppressed groups everywhere, both in and outside of the United Kingdom, and that their struggle is part of the worlds struggle towards socialism.To conclude, the Communist Party is happy to be involved with the CWL, believes that this is the best way for us to remain principled and indeed to express those principles, and cannot wait to submit joint legislation with our new partners. While we are convinced that we can work on meaningful legislation with most parties in the MHOC, we believe that our coalition with the CWL offers us the best possible position to push forward the agenda of the workers of the British Isles, and indeed, the workers of the world.A Rose By Any Other Name, by /u/G0VERNMENTFloundering for shore in the turbid sea of electoral irrelevancy, the Labour Party has followed the siren's call of "re-branding". Seeking to distance themselves from the likes of Tony Blair the Labourites have embraced the name "Progressive Labour". They place the blame for their dismal performance squarely on the shoulders of their brand; prominent Labourites claim that the voters associate them with "New Labour" and so are incapable of discerning for themselves what a party stands for. This is of course symptomatic of their Fabian elitism. Labour sees the working people as rubes who need guided to a better future gradually instead of taking agency into their own hands. If Labour's brand were so toxic, why is it they were the largest party for the last election? what is the real cause for (New) Progressive Labour's decline?The most important reason is that Labour betrayed the workers through its opportunistic coalition with the Liberal Democrats. Presenting themselves as a socialist and workers' party, the people of Britain flocked to Labour imagining that they would finally be able to take control of their own lives and production. But what exactly did Labour deliver during their time in government? Minor social democratic reforms that did nothing to alter the balance of class forces. Did Labour really think that their base wouldn't notice?Labour proved that it wasn't the socialist Party it pretended to be first with its term in government and then with their response to the Economic Democracy Bill submitted by the Communist Party. They sneered at the actual content of socialism and the workers took note. The fact that Labour has decided to go back into coalition with the Liberal Democrat Party right after dissolving the government because of that party's bad faith without even so much as contacting the Communists demonstrates their complete alienation from the working class and the cause of socialism.Another reason is the near lack of campaigning done by Labour during the election. All across model Britain, Green, Tory, UKIP and Communist adverts were strewn yet hardly a single Labour pamphlet could be found. Were voters supposed to know instinctively to vote Labour? It seems to me that Progressive Labour puts far too much stock in image than in content. They couldn't even mobilize their entire party since far fewer votes were cast for them than they have members. Were their own party members turned off by their brand?But will it help them? No, this re-branding does nothing to change the class character of Progressive Labour's programme. They remain milquetoast social democrats. They might reject Blair and yearn for Attlee (as their members have named him their icon), a man who orchestrated the overthrow of the democratically elected regime of Iran, cooperated with US imperialism, and did his best to recuperate working class struggle under the capitalist state. Sure, he allowed Bevan's NHS to be implemented but didn't touch the management structure of nationalised corporations, rather he merely put them in trust for Maggy Thatcher to turn back over later. His programme was one of undoing the mess the capitalists made to let them start anew. And this is the best Labour, Progressive Labour or whatever they call themselves have to offer us: technocratic management, regardless of any populist rhetoric they might employ. Or to put it in other words, progressively more labour.