NATIONAL ANTHEM OF Soviet Union (The Internationale)

The Internationale (L'Internationale in French) is a famous socialist, anarchist, communist, and democratic anthem and one of the most widely recognized songs in the world.

The Internationale became the anthem of international socialism. Its original French refrain is C'est la lutte finale/ Groupons-nous et demain/ L'Internationale/ Sera le genre humain. (Freely translated: "This is the final struggle/ Let us join together and tomorrow/ The Internationale/ Will be the human race.") The Internationale has been translated into most of the world's languages. Traditionally it is sung with the hand raised in a clenched fist salute. The Internationale is sung not only by communists but also (in many countries) by socialists or social democrats.
The Russian version was initially translated by Aron Kots (Arkady Yakovlevich Kots) in 1902 and printed in London in Zhizn, a Russian émigré magazine. The first Russian version consisted of three stanzas (as opposed to six stanzas in the original French lyrics) and the refrain. Later it was expanded and reworded. In 1944 the Soviet Union adopted the Hymn of the Soviet Union as its national anthem. Prior to that time, the Internationale served as the principal musical expression of allegiance to the ideals of the October Revolution and the Soviet Union. (The Internationale continued to be recognized as the official song of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.)

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• documentary
• National
• Anthem
• EX
• ESTATES
• USSR
• Soviet
• Union

[fenerbache13]

This is the one YouTube video that it isn't disagreeable that the top 2 comments are the same, it really hurts me deep down that the USA has made the rest of the world so ignorant to communism's triumph. If it's performed properly, it can become the greatest country in the world, unfornately the USSR and China were greedy and it hasn't reached the heights yet.

[h9guitarist]

WORKERS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

[sicktoaster]

@cogar488

"support for what the communist party decides" because that was the "Democratic" thing, it was what the majority wanted.

[sicktoaster]

@cogar488

Radical direct democracy is irresponsible. Some ability for the people to pass initiatives, and recall elected officials is sometimes appropriate. But the amount of "democracy"(used in your sense) that you are referring to creates a society where the common opinion prevails even in the prejudices of the moment. That's why the Soviet Union failed to remain based on soviet democracy. The Bolsheviks(means majority) were popular enough to twist support for "democracy" to meaning

[cogar488]

@sicktoaster Communists do not advocate complete government control in and of itself though. They also advocate radical direct democracy. Also, your other extreme sounds like Anarcho-Capitalism, which Communists and most Anarchists oppose.

You're creating false dichotomies and then claiming to lie in an arbitrary center.

[sicktoaster]

@cogar488

to justify their decisions and their rule. This will happen regardless, but if government has absolute control its decisions are magnified.

If the government has no control(doesn't exist) you will even have competing private court systems backed by private police forces(gangs) making their own laws(street decrees) funded by various investors(warlords), so that doesn't work either.

[sicktoaster]

@cogar488

You are missing the point. The example you gave is not "moderating" between "extremes", your example is an example of extremism in forging a balanced compromise.

Moderation is something that is itself hard to put into words. But in this case, consider if the government has total control, the people in it will naturally be biased to make decisions that favor themselves. This can not be resisted by idealized altruism. These biases operate subconsciously and the rulers continue

[Squeaks90]

@AngelDemonBakura Well comrade you might just enjoy listening to the english version by 'Billy Bragg'.

[cogar488]

@sicktoaster The argument that extremes are inherently wrong is stupid.

For example, if I say we should cut our fingers off, and someone says we shouldn't, you wouldn't suggest cutting off half a finger. It's a logical fallacy called an "Appeal to Moderation". I think you need to look into the history of the USSR & co. because it really isn't as simple as "Party Elites doing the same old things". There were reasons for what they did, and why they could, and it's not "Human Nature".

[linkinetherlands11]

@TheLazyPinecone capitalism is shit rich stole money to poors how can u support that?

[Tadsapon]

sorry i think 148 now =w="

[zhengduquan]

@Tadsapon there are 146 people's hands are full with the blood of workers