The International Workingmen's Association and the original Socialist International, the Second International, were the only two internationals that united three distinct movements:

1) The trade union movement;
2) the socialist movement of diverse class backgrounds; and
3) the independent, worker-class movement - or proletarian movement - with workers-only membership policies and the three political aims attributed to them by Marx and Engels in the Communist Manifesto.

Upon the demise of the Second International, the first movement hobbled along to forge the "Labour and Socialist" International (which name-wise reminds me of the current Trade Union and Socialist Coalition ), and then later on today's "Socialist" International.

The second movement split in two, naturally between reformists and revolutionaries. The latter formed the Comintern, the International Revolutionary Marxist Centre, the "World Party of Socialist Revolution" that was the Fourth International (Trotskyist), the International Conference of Communist and Workers Parties (official Communism), and other international groups. Except for the Comintern, none of these nutter groups and their subsequent sects had strong connections with the working class.

However, there was no reforged proletarian / worker-class movement (the difference between a "merger" and a mere "connection"). The closest to this was the short-lived International Working Union of Socialist Parties, which was a mixture of liquidationist elements on the one hand (alas) and on the other realos that left the Comintern.

Thoughts?

so, you are arguing for an international that is not united on theory, but aim? an international that aims for socialism, but does not provide reasons why? what about the how?

personally, i'm not convinced that the various reformists (including state loving marxists and wanna be dictators) can work effectively with real revolutionaries (e.g. non state loving marxists and anarchists).

maybe we need two interenationals. one, a real revolutionary one (reminiscent of the first "working mans"), and the other for all the claimed revolutionaries, but who wouldn't actually give up power if they had it in their grasp.

I'm a little vague on what constitutes the "independent, worker-class movement - or proletarian movement", if not the trade union movement or socialist movement internationally. Anarchists?

The anarchists historically belonged to an extreme fringe of the second movement ("the socialist movement of diverse class backgrounds").

I edited my post above to clarifying things. Anyway:

To bring it to a more vulgar but simpler perspective, Die Linke initially opted for left populism over trade unionism (I mean in English here). Unlike Respect, its support skyrocketed. Demographically speaking, however, it is able to unite workers of various backgrounds (employed, seasonally unemployed, pensioners, etc.) without too much emphasis on the trade union demographic.

Die Linke, however, has neither a strict workers-only membership nor the three aims of a PNNC ("proletarian party") in the Communist Manifesto, but its tailored left populism unintentionally fulfills each of these four things at least partially (not getting support from small business or the self-employed or bourgeois elements married to one of their political figures a.k.a. Sahra Wagenknecht, unintentionally trying to forge workers into a class for itself, but not establishing proletarian hegemony or transforming the state structure to enable the working class to take power):

"The US billionaire Warren Buffett answered this question much better than the Left Party ever could. 'It's class warfare; my class is winning,' he said. To which I would add: The class that has been losing for years is starting to stir again." (Oskar Lafontaine)

You're sure there's not an existing international that meets your requirements?

"...first as tragedy, then as farce." The first thing people thinking about reviving the Second International should work out is why the largest member of the original - the German SPD - in 1914 forgot what they'd been singing for decades: "And if those cannibals keep trying/to sacrifice us to their pride/the soldiers too will take strike action/we'll shoot the generals on our own side" and voted in the Reichstag for funding an inter-Capitalist war. And figure out how not to repeat the experience.

Um, the farce already came during that revolutionary period: the inability of the realos who departed the Comintern and formed the left wing of the International Working Union of Socialist Parties to combat the liquidationist elements that were the right wing. The USPD itself re-adopted the Erfurt Program.

But the Second International did not just exist in 1914 and afterwards. In the early period of its existence it was the home of many revolutionaries. Rosa Luxemburg was a member of the SPD. The RSDLP (which included Lenin and Trotsky, of course) was the Russian affiliate. Even left communists like Pannekoek and Bordiga were involved.

Louis Proyect's articles:

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/20...art-1-the-iwa/

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/20...international/

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/20...the-comintern/

http://louisproyect.wordpress.com/20...the-centrists/