Assessing Inter-regional Relations: The Democratic Socialist Assembly and The Internationale
Written by Tawkania
Preface
The Internationale and the DSA stand in mutual disregard as a result of their differences and their confrontational history. Conflict of opinion, military contentions and derogatory stereotypes have lead to personal feuds and regional antagonisms which eventually necessitated a ‘peace treaty’. These are two of the largest socialist regions on NationStates, and therefore the state of relations between them, officially and personally, is of great significance. In this text I hope to elucidate the causes of their division, to provide a platform for the views of their members, and to explore why and how inter-regional relations should be progressed.
In this text, the word ‘socialist’ or ‘socialism’ denotes all leftist ideologies and beliefs, including but not limited to: socialism, communism, anarchism, syndicalism etc. Only 26 people responded to the survey I sent out, therefore the statistics used in this text are rather unrepresentative, however these statistics are far from pivotal in my analysis. I am no professional writer nor socialist scholar, but I hope this text is written to a high enough standard to clarify the situation and provoke reconciliatory discussion. Please accept my apologies for the lateness of the publication of this text, which I admit is a failing on my part considering the amount of time put in to my (unforgivably long) questionnaire by members of the DSA and The Internationale; several reasons including real-life priorities, several total redrafts of the text and hesitation over whether any good could actually come from this, have delayed me this long.
I realise that this text may open up old wounds, and (hopefully) break the superficially successful policy of ignoring each other, and that therefore there is the clear possibility of provoking conflict rather than reconciliation. I ask people to take a step back from the heat of the fire and consider my calls for the triumph of rational relations and socialist solidarity over mindless antagonism.
The Issues
Anti-fascism
A divisive issue between the DSA and The Internationale is their position on anti-fascism. Individual people will have independent views, however regional policy approximately summarises the general view. The DSA asserts a policy of neutrality in raiding and defending while holding a pacifist position on anti-fascism in that they reject the invasion of fascist regions. The Internationale, conversely, strongly associate with The Red Fleet (TRF) which actively fights fascism and defends leftists. Although the government of the DSA affirms neutrality, there is a marked defenderist current within the region notably the United Defender’s League (UDL) although the extent and significance of this current is highly debated. Consequently, the pacifist-militant divide has evolved into a UDL-TRF confrontation.
Explaining their attitude to anti-fascism, Lemur Isles says: We value democracy - the antithesis of fascism. However, we don’t involve ourselves in military gameplay against fascist regions, because that is not our focus, and some of us do not think that raiding fascists will solve anything, but education is key. Another DSA member adds to this: Violence is not the way to ever truly achieve peace and a fair, successful society or world. However, some nations in The Internationale view this policy as fascist-appeasing[sup]1[/sup], for example one nation remarks To defend a fascist’s right to speech is to defend his right to oppress… Nobody should be free to support genocide, segregation, or hate speech, while another nation argues that …the DSA doesn’t care for people struggling under fascist or capitalist regimes. These responses make evident that their opposition to the DSA’s pacifism is not out of ideological extremism but disillusionment, due to the supposed apathy of the DSA. Members of the DSA staunchly deny the accusations of being fascist-appeasing; Laevendell responds: I have seen this claim several times and have yet to see any structured explanation for it, so I do not know exactly what was meant, but the DSA has always been firmly anti-fascist, as it is strongly against totalitarian and unequal regimes. However, many nations of The Internationale would not agree that the DSA is fascist-appeasing; for example, one nation responded: No. Such a claim might have some truth to it if this were real life (i.e. if the DSA refused to fight the Nazis in WWII), but this is a game; the priority is to have fun, and military gameplay is not everyone’s idea of fun. Also, I think defending in general (i.e. from The Black Riders) is laudable. What would make them fascist-appeasers would be for the region as a whole to actively defend fascist regions (and by fascist I mean ultranationalist/hate-glorifying). This response also identifies another explanation for the DSA’s disconnect with anti-fascist action: a different approach to the game. One nation says: We value democracy - the antithesis of fascism. However, we don’t involve ourselves in military gameplay against fascist regions, because that is not our focus; this contrasts with The Internationale, who, as well as their commitment to democracy and the progress of socialism, uphold anti-fascism as a significant activity on NationStates. Many nations cannot understand why the issue has such an effect on their relationship, for example, Ratateague comments we have very much in common terms and goals. I don’t understand why it keeps getting in the way of a good relationship and another nation says about The Red Fleet I agree with their goals, but I feel that they’re in a very ‘with us or against us’ mentality. That never goes well.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-qzUxtOCpcVc/UfaKY01pzpI/AAAAAAAAAt4/_QByY2Fy4H0/s288/dgdfgdsgs.jpg
Some nations in the DSA have accused The International of being a raider region due to their affiliation with The Red Fleet, decrying them as being red imperialists. Many times they’ve claimed we’re as bad as the fascists, yet they seem to hate us more than they do them…. The DSA’s pacifist policy, alongside labelling The Internationale as raiders, has been used to rationalise holding back relations, especially with regards to an embassy. However, it must be observed that only two of the twelve respondents in the DSA agreed that The Internationale was a raider region[sup]2[/sup]; furthermore, some DSA members commended the anti-fascist action of The Red Fleet, one nation stating I think what they do is noble. A nation of The Internationale clarifies [the raider description] is imprecise. We perform solidarity options in diverse strategic contexts, which may involve raiding, defending, or both. We also have voluntary deployments, so we wouldn’t last long as a raiding crew.
Footnotes
(1) 5 out of 14 of nations surveyed in The Internationale would agree that the DSA is ‘fascist-appeasing’.
(2) 2 answered yes, 7 answered no, and 3 were mixed/unsure.
Ideology
One of the most bitter divisions in the socialist movement is between revolutionary communists and social democrats, the latter term denoting reformism and an acceptance of a mixed economy. This latent antipathy is an underlying contributor to the current disagreement. Kazinstan, of The Internationale, concisely summarises the argument: The DSA are reformist, liberal, revisionists. We are true communists. Superficially, this opinion has some foundation. For example, the DSA’s ‘About’ page[sup]1[/sup] describes itself as being for those who, among other things, support a mixed socialist economy, which suggests endorsement of some degree of capitalism. Additionally, the prioritisation of democracy implies the favouring of a transition through democratic reform rather than revolution.
Conversely, some in the DSA rebuff The Internationale as being too radical, criticising what they see as irrational militancy. It’s a much more militant and at times radical region than the DSA. Furthermore, The Internationale have sometimes been depicted by the DSA as Stalinists and ideological chauvinists a particularly questionable stereotype considering The Internationale’s left-communist tendency. Although, Toka 313 more moderately states: I have no problem with radicalism, so long at they battle against reactionaries, and not cannibalize friends.
However, behind these regional stereotypes the nominal depiction of the DSA as a social democratic bloc and The Internationale as a Stalinist haven there is diversity of doctrine. There are social democrats in both regions, revolutionary communists in both regions, alongside every other shade of red (and black)… this is diversity. I strongly argue, as would most others, that to discern a regional ideology is to stereotype and to prejudice against each member of that region. Every individuals ideological foundation is different, even if only a little, and as such, ideology varies within each region as much as it does between each region. Beyond dismissing these prejudices, it is important not to condemn the divergence of opinion; ideological hubris and rejection of political pluralism benefits neither the leftist movement nor the exposition of one’s own beliefs. Toka 313 says Not everyone in this world is going to agree with every political decision. The cost of ‘political purity’ is a lack of diversity. Conflict of opinion is the source of debate that stimulates learning and progression; without this, there can only be a decline into dogmatic stagnation. The energy that some people, of both regions, pour into asserting their own ideological superiority should be turned against the real enemies. A member of The Internationale affirms: …there are more than just socialist lefties on NationStates, and that after some point our views meld together and ideology and factions mean nothing.
Footnotes
(1) http://s1.zetaboards.com/DemocraticSocialist/topic/4904371/1/?x=0#post900213
The DSA and the United Defender’s League
Some members of The Internationale have criticised what they see as a comprehensive UDL involvement in the DSA, and have accused the DSA of aligning with the UDL in a de facto proxy war against TRF. The conflict between the UDL and TRF is a result of the UDL’s policy of universal defending, to the effect that they may defend a fascist region which TRF is invading. Some also claim that DSA public opinion especially with regards to foreign policy is influenced by the UDL, such that they do not consort with ‘less moderate’ regions, i.e. The Internationale. This is seen as an attempt to keep the DSA within the UDL’s sphere of influence rather than part of the wider leftist community. For example, Zopilote Negro (Internationale) remarked: We had a good relationship, until Unibot moved in and started changing things, and until the UDL put a heavy vice grip on what public opinion would be of socialists in that region for socialists in our region. However, most respondents described the DSA-UDL relationship less severely, for example, Hungry Freaks (Internationale) simply said Seems to me they are pretty cozy and happy with each other. Notably, many respondents, of The Internationale, did not know of any relationship between the DSA and the UDL, indicating that this view isn’t widely held.
However, UDL members constitute a small minority of the DSA, and there is little evidence of the UDL’s alleged influence over the DSA. Consequently, there is a feeling of victimisation in the DSA over these accusations. When asked about the relationship between the DSA and the UDL, Ratateague (DSA) responded that it is a very loose [connection], if at all. A couple members have participated, and we’ve never heard the end of it, while another DSA member says We have a few UDL members in the DSA, but they don’t speak for us and we don’t speak for them. I think that we should be slightly less friendly, but I wouldn’t want to alienate those UDL members already in the DSA. The latter statement suggests some cognition of a UDL presence, confirmed by another nation: We are very close and we have several nations (including me) who are active in UDL and DSA.
Some nations of The Internationale further criticize a supposed contradiction between the DSA’s pacifist policy and the presence of defenders in the region. One member of The Internationale says They claim pasificsm with one hand but allow fascist-supporting UDL members in the region with the other. Hungry Freaks adds to this If DSA is officially pacifist, it makes them hypocrites until they expel every UDL member…. The DSA, however, view the region’s military stance to be discrete from the stance of its individual nations; that is, its regional policy to raiding and defending is neutral but its members are allowed to partake in military organisations (e.g. the UDL and TRF) freely. For example, Kasperiah (DSA) states the right of nations to enlist any R/D organization should not be of regional concern.
Their is a lack of coherence and evidence in the accusations against the DSA, which could be due to the tacit nature of the relationship. Despite this, the issue should not be dismissed as irrational, but instead should be assessed. A possible solution could be an independent or bi-lateral investigation into the claims.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-Q0ySfjWQ7JM/UfaKZm_aNYI/AAAAAAAAAuA/Fz1zsIcjfe4/s288/sdgsfgsdfgsdg.jpg
Pact of Steel
The diplomatic incident surrounding the invasion and counter-invasion of the region Pact of Steel was a notable step in escalation of tensions and long-term degradation of relations; however most people today are not aware of the events.
A member of The Internationale describes: In the Pact of Steel incident, myself and other comrade-members of TRF launched an attack on the founderless fascist region Pact of Steel. Members of the UDL apparently had nations in the region and launched a counteroffensive that eventually led to the banjection of TRF members and the loss of the region to the fascists. I think we got it back in the end though… it ruined my opinion of the UDL that’s for sure, and it solidified TRF against the UDL.
Laevendell of the DSA summarises the incident as follows: If my memory serves well, the region Pact of Steel was raided by Antifa/TRF (and/or other connected organisations) and was defended by amongst other regions Antarctic Alliance (AA). This latter region had an embassy with the Democratic Socialist Alliance (DSAll) and there was some discussion in that region about whether Pact of Steel had been a ‘fascist region’. TI thought it was and demanded that the DSAll close embassies with AA or they would close theirs with the DSAll. When the DSAll didn’t want to close either, TI responded that they would isolate the DSAll for not doing what they wanted.
(Too clarify, the Democratic Socialist Alliance included current members of the Democratic Socialist Assembly, as this event preceded the creation of the Assembly.)
These statements suggest that the DSA were not involved in the invasion or the counter-invasion of the region Pact of Steel, rather, the issue began in the diplomatic aftermath of the event. The Internationale were angry at the DSA for not standing by them after being repelled from a fascist region by defenders including the Antarctic Alliance with whom the DSA held embassies. The DSA, who took a position of neutrality, and contended whether the region was seriously fascist, felt bullied by The Internationale when they condemned the Democratic Socialist Alliance as a fascist sympathizer and revoked diplomacy and ties. Some in the DSA accuse The Internationale of being Overreactive and sore from losing resulting in a strange and exaggerated response, whilst accusations run the other way of the DSA betraying The Internationale and sympathising with a fascist region. This appears to be the root of the fascist-appeasing accusations held against the DSA, as they did not denounce ties with the Antarctic Alliance, instead declaring neutrality.
However, indistinctly entangled into the incident was the ever-present UDL-TRF conflict. Some UDL members in the DSA apparently defended the UDL counter-invasion, stimulating a fight for the moral high-ground. Support for the UDL and their defence of the fascist Pact of Steel, from within the DSA, evidently invigorated the diplomatic backlash and personal animosity. However, in stark comparison to the deeply personal clash this depicts, the statement above by a member of The Internationale (who was involved in the invasion) does not at all mention the DSA, only the UDL, suggesting that the true dispute is only between the UDL and TRF, with the DSA dragged into it by circumstance (their embassy with Antarctic Alliance and the membership of a few UDL defenders).
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-2Vy_W3gm4lo/UfaKZ8QJsuI/AAAAAAAAAuE/2xUuJP8KRPI/s288/sgsdggdr.jpg
The incident is still relevant today in that it is one of the causes of tension between the regions, however a more important question is: should the incident still be relevant?
The Democratic Socialist Alliance
Recently added to the arsenal of denunciatory rhetoric is the image reflected on the DSA due to the actions of New Bazlantis in the D.S.Alliance. New Bazlantis, using a puppet, invaded and vandalised the region in response to the undemocratic behaviour of the founder and similar historical grievances. This matter has been used against the D.S.Assembly in arguments, although, of the fourteen members of The Internationale who responded, only three agreed that the incident reflected the nature of the DSA as a whole.[sup]1[/sup] One member of The Internationale viewed the actions of New Bazlantis as part of a wider vendetta in the D.S.Assembly against the D.S.Alliance: …they raided and vandalized CMK/Democratic Socialist Alliance, that’s AFTER they convinced almost all the natives there to leave for their region. They ‘annexed’ the membership technically, and then they left that action to finish off the blow. However, New Bazlantis stated that his actions were his own and not endorsed or known of by the D.S.Assembly.[sup]2[/sup] All comments by D.S.Assembly members, in the wake of his identity being revealed by moderators, condemned his actions publicly.[sup]3[/sup]
Meanwhile, in the DSA, some members are critical of the response from The Internationale to the aforementioned undemocratic behaviour of the founder of the D.S.Alliance, Cynthia McKinney.[sup]4[/sup] One nation comments: I think that, as well as the whole Pact of Steel thing, we should also be looking at TI’s reaction to CMK’s treatment of the DSAlliance and the ‘Second Exodus’, as the DSA are calling it. Yes, they disenfranchised Thomas Paine, but it was too late. They did not show solidarity to myself (or any of the other former DSAlliance members). Granted, I had only been in the Alliance a short time, but for a region that hates tyranny and totalitarianism, I find it strange that they were apparently fine with CMK’s behaviour.
Footnotes
(1) 3 answered yes, 6 answered no, 5 were mixed or unaware of the incident.
(2) NationStates | RMB Post
(3) NationStates | RMB Post
(4) See the defeated WASC resolution Condemn Cynthia McKinney: NationStates • View topic - [DEFEATED] Condemn Cynthia McKinney
DSA closing embassy with The Internationale
Approximately one year ago, the Democratic Socialist Assembly closed its embassy with The Internationale as part of a major change in embassy policy. The response in The Internationale was one of disbelief and offence because they felt that they met all the DSA’s requirements for holding an embassy (which were the basis of the closure), because The Internationale had supported the DSA since its inception, and because some thought that New Bazlantis, who had ordered the closure, was doing so on behalf of the UDL’s agenda against TRF.[sup]1[/sup] Following the closure there was a bitter exchange of RMB posts, telegrams and banjections.
The survey responses were mixed, with some viewing the embassy closure as a clear sign of disapproval, for example Lamort des Epees comments It makes me feel that the DSA is not interested in the TI, while others see it as unimportant, for example Socialist Space Republic says I don’t pay it much mind since it is mostly symbolical and it didn’t really affect my opinion of them.
It seems there is also some confusion as to why the embassy was closed, and there is some discrepancy on this matter. In the RMB post by New Bazlantis informing The Internationale of the embassy closure, they state …I regretfully inform you that this region now falls outside the necessary requirements for sharing embassies…,[sup]2[/sup] whereas in their post in the DSA forum they list all the regions closed due to falling outside the requirements, and then separately state Embassies with the region of the Internationale shall also be withdrawn due to incompatible political philosophies and their continue support for raiding and destruction of native communities under the ‘Antifa’ brand,[sup]3[/sup] which has quite different implications.
The Internationale also accused New Bazlantis of making a unilateral undemocratic decision on the basis of his own personal views; a member of the DSA then clarified that it was a unanimous decision by the democratically elected cabinet of the DSA[sup]4[/sup]; The Internationale felt that this was still undemocratic as it was not decided by a regional vote but only by the cabinet; however, the decision was then brought to a regional vote on the request of a DSA member, resulting in the decision being upheld.[sup]5[/sup]
Much of the dispute following the embassy closure was a clash of ideology and views on anti-fascism, and, again, the ever-present UDL-TRF confrontation. Thus, these disagreements were consolidated by the seemingly disparaging nature of the DSA’s closure of their embassy and the seemingly aggressive response from The Internationale.
Footnotes
(1) See the response of La Pasionaria: NationStates | RMB Post
(2) NationStates | RMB Post
(3) http://s1.zetaboards.com/DemocraticSocialist/topic/4854563/1/
(4) NationStates | RMB Post
(5) http://s1.zetaboards.com/DemocraticSocialist/topic/4860066/1/
What divides the DSA and TI more: fundamental differences, or the back-and-forth insults and uninformed generalisations of the opposite region?
Responses to the above question were markedly different from each region; while six of the fourteen respondents from The Internationale answered that fundamental differences divide more, none of the DSA respondents answered such.
One member of The Internationale judged that The bickering is a symptom of that underlying problem, this is a view shared by others including Hungry Freaks, who commented: The back and forth insults spring from the fundamental differences, which are significant. From this perspective, the differences between the regions in ideology, views on anti-fascism, and raider-defender alignment are the root of discord; therefore, to move forward with left-wing unity, these differences need to be discussed, debated and bridged.
However, it could be argued that divergence of opinion is an inescapable constant in life, and that the aforementioned differences are artificially accentuated by recurring altercations, by prejudicial dispositions, by regionalist bigotry and by obsolete grudges (from both sides). Arcomo answers: Fundamental differences exist everywhere, including within individual regions. It is misunderstanding those differences and abandoning reasonable communications for hysterical rants which creates the distance between two sides of an argument. Laevendell adds I do not think there is value in everyone thinking exactly alike, so I do not think interregional socialist solidarity trumps any other values, but socialist (and other leftist/anarchist) regions should be able to work together on common values while learning from each others’ differences and sharing ideas without judgement. This view is also held by some in The Internationale, for example, one nation comments: [If] the insults died down, we could all realize that there is no real difference between the two sides. Ideology means absolutely nothing when it comes down to it. All leftists across NS are on the same side. There are fundamental differences between the two, but the insults make it impossible for both regions to concentrate on finding what brings the together or to try and resolve these differences.
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-qidLYjKWwv4/UfaKYwJ4kmI/AAAAAAAAAuU/KF3BVMoPBjI/s288/sdfesdgd.jpghttps://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-KtIaVV5kduM/UfaKaF8Ys2I/AAAAAAAAAuQ/5icTI-I96Po/s288/vfsdzfvdfvd.jpg
Moving Forwards
The issues explored above seem insurmountable in the pursuit of left unity; the two regions have turned their backs to each other, weary of conflict, but unable to reach genuine accord. A peace treaty is being sought by both as the first stage of rapprochement, and while this is laudable development, it is not the final goal socialism is not an ideology of politicking or officialism but an ideology of people, equality and solidarity this is the final goal: heartfelt socialist solidarity.
The NationStates manifestation of inter-regional relations is the embassy; as already noted, the embassy between the DSA and The Internationale has long been closed. Zopilote Negro (Internationale) suggests that embassy recognition… communication through ambassadors or consuls that creates goodwill instead of provocation would help change the situation, and others agreed that a system of diplomatic exchange (i.e. a consulate if not an embassy) would be helpful. Others commented that while an embassy should be an aim, firstly trust should be rebuilt. Either way, as it stands an embassy wouldn’t be likely to pass a democratic vote.
The ‘Peace Treaty’, mediated by the United People’s Front for Socialism (UPFS) builds the first bridge necessary for what will be a long-term reconciliation. Arcomo (DSA) commented: I think the initiative is commendable and I hope it’ll do what I think both sides here hope it will - which is to ease the relation and generate more (preferably friendly) interaction, while Socialist Space Republic (Internationale) suggests The UFPS ambassador could be a bit more active and try to mediate if something happens and the responsible people of both regions couldn’t because they were absent. However, recently, even this political peace has been abandoned; genuine peace was first exchanged for an official peace, now even this official peace has been exchanged for mutual indifference. This must be reversed.
The long term progression of relations isn’t, however, in the hands of official representatives, but in the hands of the people of both regions. An official agreement is of no meaning if it is not built upon by social harmonization. Compromise of one’s own ideals and a regions identity is not necessary, but tolerance and respect is requisite. The key to dispelling misconceptions and forming genuine solidarity is interaction. Through personal but rational discussion and debate, people can overcome the differences between them that are so unnecessarily accentuated at present. Inter-regional discussion could be facilitated by a forum or through a mutual exchange of puppets. The current consensus of policy that is, mutual disregard only serves to consolidate the deterioration of left unity; a member of the DSA acknowledges: In isolation the stereotypes promoted in each region will only grow harsher with time. Excepting the ‘peace’ talks, interaction rarely extends beyond ‘diplomatic’ exchanges in which a hollow olive branch is extended downwards from a lofty platform of self-righteousness.
While The Internationale and DSA, as a generalisation, differ on their view of anti-fascism and the socialist transition, they share in common so much more. Both regions are socialist, both advocate democracy and both champion the freedom of humanity from the exploitation and oppression of capitalism and unjust authority. If these similarities can be emphasised and valued then the differences can be, not ignored, but overcome. A member of the DSA says: We are so similar that there shouldn’t be any problem with cooperation. Arcomo (DSA) affirms: In spite of our differences, we have much in common and would do well to focus on those aspects of our regions which will bring is closer together… I think a more pleasant coexistence between our two regions, as part of the dominant left on NS, would be very beneficial to both of us. This can be achieved in many ways, but more and more decent interaction would be a good start.
A crucial part of the process of reconciliation will be the rebuilding of trust between the two regions, which will take time. The most significant barrier to rebuilding trust is a military contention. A nation of the DSA suggests that A focus on how to defend and assist leftist regions that could prove to be allies, greater cohesion and united front against fascists, rather than in-fighting, backbiting and friction over tactics would help relations recover. In this vein, consider the possibility of a joint defensive mission, wherein both regions send nations voluntarily but officially endorsed to defend a socialist region in need, as a single force. This would generate inter-regional socialist solidarity, through actions not just words, and substantiate both regions commitment to the socialist movement.
It could be argued that regionalism is the nationalism of NationStates, and this parallel demonstrates the counter-productive nature of disregarding inter-regional cooperation. A majority of the people, from both regions, who responded to the questionnaire said that inter-regional socialist solidarity was more important than a regions independent community. A member of the DSA says: I feel we share core leftist ideals and perhaps only our methods of achieving them are different. These can and should be worked around for the sake of realising our shared goals, while Lemur Isles comments: I like the idea of The Internationale, and I see them as our comrades in a struggle for freedom and socialism. There are some differences between our communities, but that does not make me think any less of TI. Toka 313 adds: There are different cultures in the world that perform acts that seem foreign and against my values. That is not a reason to fail to enact peace.
https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fXzbXWyP8r0/UfaKY8JByEI/AAAAAAAAAtw/XL1i028d1mo/s288/dfvsdvdvfdv.jpg
The path of reconciliation is not a definite, and neither can it be forced. A progression of the relationship should be the choice of all, not just regional representatives; but while it is apparent that not all are in favour of better relations, it appears that such people are a minority, whose opposition is on the basis of the prejudices and grudges explored above. Remembering that fatuous divisions are immeasurably less consequential than the sustenance of socialist solidarity, I must assert that it is not only the choice, but the responsibility, of the people of both regions to recognise their inter-dependence on the path to socialism. You will find socialist solidarity after looking into the eye of your so called ‘antagonist’ and seeing not your differences but your mutual spirit of liberty, equality and humanity. When we turn our backs to each other we turn our backs on much more than at first it might seem.
I just hope that we make peace. As Marx said "Workers of the World, Unite! - Lemur Isles