Reds! A Revolutionary Timeline

Voted best in category in the Users' Choice awards.
I think the Basic Law caps district size at 50,000 people so that would give a basic idea of total number, I'm not sure what the UASR population is currently. Also I seem to recall there was language in there about making cities integral districts rather than parts of larger ones, though how that has been impacted by the elimination of the urban-rural divide at present is an open question.

That's also as of 1948 in that update and for sure, there will be constitutional revisions and amendments coming right up, so that number could become slightly higher. It's also wrong to consider that the administrative districts have to correspond to what OTL would be called as House districts. It doesn't work that way.

Remember the promotion process for delegates from district soviet to All-Union Congress of Soviets, so it doesn't have to entail adjusting administrative district boundaries every two years for purposes of redistricting. The "gerrymandering" occurs for the constituency delegate seats within the district soviet themselves.

That's where the direct election happens.

It could also happen for the weighted proportional allocation of seats per administrative district for the state soviet (where more weight is given to urban areas rather than rural, for example) but most of the magic happens in the district soviet redistricting every two years.

So, for example, the Washington Socialist Republic (if it still has 7.786 million people like IOTL 2022) must have roughly 104 delegates to the All-Union Congress of Soviets (if we say that it's now one deputy per 75,000 people as of 2024) but that doesn't surely mean that there should be 104 administrative districts (OTL Washington only has 39 counties) as your post are kind of implying but you surely don't intend to. That's ridiculous.

That's why I said it doesn't work that way. You cannot tell how many districts are there throughout the country in that way.

Do not confuse the administrative districts with legislative constituencies. They do not align.

This is all a system that's alien to OTL sensibilities so I can understand.
 
Last edited:
They're probably going to have to increase the ratio of delegates to voters by an order of magnitude by the 21st century if the UASR follows OTL population growth trends, because otherwise the sheer number of delegates would become unmanageable.
 
Ok, so if the administrative districts aren't the voting constituencies (which makes sense as far as it goes with this scaling), what are the voting constituencies? Does that have its own, separate geographic map, or is it done by some other grouping? It doesn't seem like it should be just proportionality since I remember these mostly being single-seat?
 
Ok, so if the administrative districts aren't the voting constituencies (which makes sense as far as it goes with this scaling), what are the voting constituencies? Does that have its own, separate geographic map, or is it done by some other grouping? It doesn't seem like it should be just proportionality since I remember these mostly being single-seat?

The single-seat member districts are all for district soviets, the soviet congresses of the administrative district level. And they are geographic districts that can be drawn on a map.

For example, let's say that the Seattle Soviet, an administrative district soviet, has 650 delegates. That's 650 single-member districts inside Seattle alone (or at most 320 seats or so if at most one half of total seats or 480 seats if at least a third of the total seats are filled via party-list).

So we are talking of tens of thousands of single-member districts throughout the country that it's impossible to be mapped (at least from an OTL perspective), each single-member district soviet constituency with an average voter base of just a few thousand.

State/republic-level soviet congresses may then allocate seats based on particular constituencies inside administrative district boundaries (or do it through other ways) but it's going to be the district soviet that would elect those delegates among themselves, elevating those members to the state-level while the vacancies they leave at the district level gets filled up by some other way that election authorities and ordinances decide (most likely through extended party-list/union slates, with ready made formulas to be used in order to avoid run-off or special elections since we are talking of thousands of delegate seats moving and rotating because of these promotions and elevations).

Proportionality applies in the elevation process, since it is proportional party representation, which I already described as to how it works.

But the basic principle is that all elected officials in the higher levels of government comes from below, elected by the people in the district level.

Even the Premier candidate must win a local election at the district level, first, and then get the votes of their colleagues to get to the state-level and the All-Union level before getting elected to the Central Committee. It's party discipline that counts to make that possible from that point on.

Scientific polling makes it all predictable at the end that exit polls can pretty much deduced who's going to form the All-Union government anyway.
 
Last edited:
So to make sure I understand this correctly: Continuing the previous example, say I live in Seattle. I go to a polling place. Do I vote for a person, or a party? If a person, how is it determined which constituency I'm from, and therefore which small subset of the theoretically thousands of candidates standing for those 650 slots I am choosing from? I get that it's a practical impossibility to map it out, but if the constituencies aren't separated by geographic borders, what are they separated by?
 
So to make sure I understand this correctly: Continuing the previous example, say I live in Seattle. I go to a polling place. Do I vote for a person, or a party? If a person, how is it determined which constituency I'm from, and therefore which small subset of the theoretically thousands of candidates standing for those 650 slots I am choosing from? I get that it's a practical impossibility to map it out, but if the constituencies aren't separated by geographic borders, what are they separated by?

I'm not sure if you ever voted before but don't obsess with this impossible to create electoral map. Otherwise you're losing sight of the important details.

To translate this to familiar terminologies, if you're in Seattle, you are voting for this


Rather than 9 districts, which you can clearly see the electoral map of it in the link, there are 300-400 of them targeting particular neighborhoods (not to mention the entire idea that Seattle in Reds! is probably bigger).


The rest of the delegates are in the party-list block.

You are voting local but that local vote carries to DC.

Those 650 people in the Seattle City Council vote for the delegation of the metropolitan area to the state House of Representatives (unicameral). The state constitution determines the ratio of deputy per population and the weighted proportionality of all of that but the basic rule is that there should be proportionality in party representation, which I already described.

Your vote for your delegate to the Seattle City Council is not directly involved in any of that. It affects those outcomes above the city-level but you are not voting for anyone up there directly. That's for the Seattle City Council to decide.

As for the way you vote personally, this is not an abstract thing. Most voters in most liberal democracies vote like this. They vote for their local parliamentary constituency candidate as well as for a party of their choice in the ballot.


(German Bundestag - General, direct, free, equal and secret)

A UASR ballot paper can look something like that above as well. It's not that difficult.

In this case, I guess there could be some "split-voting" possible if you vote for an SEU candidate for your local constituency but voted for Liberation in the party-list block.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure if you ever voted before but don't obsess with this impossible to create electoral map. Otherwise you're losing sight of the important details.

To translate this to familiar terminologies, if you're in Seattle, you are voting for this


Rather than 9 districts, which you can clearly see the electoral map of it in the link, there are 300-400 of them targeting particular neighborhoods (not to mention the entire idea that Seattle in Reds! is most likely bigger territorially).


The rest of the delegates are in the party-list block.

You're probably voting for someone you've met before or even talked to. It's not an exaggeration that an American citizen regularly sees a general election candidate more than once in their life personally.

Then those 650 people in the Seattle City Council vote for the delegation of the metropolitan city to the state Congress (unicameral). The state constitution determines the ratio of deputy per population and the weighted proportionality of all of that but the basic rule is that there should be proportionality in party representation, which I already described.

Your vote for the city council is not directly involved in any of that. It affects those outcomes above the city-level but you are not voting for anyone up there directly. That's for the Seattle City Council to decide.

As for the way you vote personally, this is not an abstract thing. Most voters in most liberal democracies vote like this. They vote for their local parliamentary constituency candidate as well as for a party of their choice in the ballot.


(German Bundestag - General, direct, free, equal and secret)

A UASR ballot paper can look something like that above as well. It's not that difficult.

In this case, I guess there could be some "split-voting" possible if you vote for an SEU candidate for your local constituency but voted for Liberation in the party-list block.
So that would suggest that some sort of MMP system is common for the district soviets? And then for the higher level soviets it's some form of proportional representation with the voters being the soviets immediately below them
 
So that would suggest that some sort of MMP system is common for the district soviets? And then for the higher level soviets it's some form of proportional representation with the voters being the soviets immediately below them

Yep, that's it! I don't know why I have to use a lot of words to explain but that's exactly it.
 
You're welcome.

I also think that another convenient purpose of the party-list block is to make sure that, in our given example, the 104 delegates that will be promoted from the 650-member Seattle City Council to the Washington State House of Representatives to represent Seattle can get filled up fairly quickly.

And it's probably not just 104 people if you think about it due to further promotion of Seattle delegates in the Washington State House of Representatives to the federal Congress to represent the entire Washington State at-large but also Seattle, in particular.

Let's say that for the sake of our example, it's 15 delegates in the federal level that represents Seattle in DC, then that's actually 119 delegates that gets promoted from the City Council.

So the movement of people looks like this:

1) 650 delegates elected by the voters to the Seattle City Council.
2) 104 out of those 650 gets elected to represent Seattle in the state Capitol by the City Council itself voting amongst themselves (or there could be a formula in place for this, I don't know)
3) Those 104 vacancies in the City Council then gets filled up by the party-list block
3) 15 out of those 104 delegates then goes to DC to represent Washington State after the voting in the state Capitol to get their
representation to DC in place.
4) Then those 15 vacancies left by the promotion get filled up by the City Council again electing a new group.
5) That still leaves those 15 vacancies open... until it gets filled by the party-list block closing the loop.

> So in reality, Seattle elected 769 delegates (650 City Council plus 119 promoted people).

And if you all think that's too big, Seattle metropole IOTL has 4 million people. That's nothing. Besides, that 650-member City Council does not meet everyday.

It's the Central Executive Council of Seattle that's going to be the everyday parliament.

Just for reference, Singapore IOTL has 5 million and its Parliament has 104 members.

That's probably more or less Seattle's own CEC.

And I think all of the modern scientific polling may have taken this into consideration since the media and the polling agencies probably has a list of those delegates that will most likely get elected to the state and federal levels.... because the political parties have made those decisions even before the filing of candidacies.

I think all of the political parties have their official/unofficial lists ready as to who's going up another level or who's going to stay but will go to the standing organs or the CECs of that level of government. That's the "primaries" part of everything.

It's then party discipline that's going to make sure 90% of the time that all the elected delegates get to their designated destinations.

And like in Japan in our real world, for instance, even if you lose in the single-member district election, you may still win a seat due to the party-list proportional block. So there are all kinds of outcomes possible.

It all looks intricate and complex at first... but it's just alien. We are just not used seeing a system like this.
 
Last edited:
You're welcome.

I also think that another convenient purpose of the party-list block is to make sure that, in our given example, the 104 delegates that will be promoted from the 650-member Seattle City Council to the Washington State House of Representatives to represent Seattle can get filled up fairly quickly.

And it's probably not just 104 people if you think about it due to further promotion of Seattle delegates in the Washington State House of Representatives to the federal Congress to represent the entire Washington State at-large but also Seattle, in particular.

Let's say that for the sake of our example, it's 15 delegates in the federal level that represents Seattle in DC - then that's actually 119 delegates that gets promoted from the City Council.

All of the modern scientific polling may have taken this into consideration since the media and the polling agencies probably has a list of those delegates that will most likely get elected to the state and federal levels.... because the political parties have made those decisions even before the filing of candidacies.

I think all of the political parties also have their official/unofficial lists ready as to who's going up another level or who's going to stay but will go to the standing organs or the CECs of that level of government. That's the "primaries" part.

It's then party discipline that's going to make sure 90% of the time that all the elected delegates get to their designated destinations.

And like in Japan in our real world, for instance, even if you lose in the single-member district election, you may still win a seat due to the party-list proportional block. So there are all kinds of outcomes possible.

It all looks intricate and complex at first... but it's just alien. We are just not used seeing a system like this.
My next question personally though, is how are those vacancies filled? The ones formed by the election of deputies to a higher level soviet? To use your example, if 104 people from the Seattle soviet of 650 are promoted to the Washington state soviet, will the Seattle soviet just have only 546 delegates?
 
My next question personally though, is how are those vacancies filled? The ones formed by the election of deputies to a higher level soviet? To use your example, if 104 people from the Seattle soviet of 650 are promoted to the Washington state soviet, will the Seattle soviet just have only 546 delegates?

I just edited my post above to answer that question - because I anticipated someone will ask that! Haha!

But I'll say this - all of this is taken into account by Election Day that by late night, everyone knows who's the winner.

It's almost like the Electoral College. We are talking a little bit of electoral votes in here for those higher level soviets that will eventually be filled up.

We don't know the specific people that may get elected to those levels, yet, though we may have have an idea of who's who, but WE DO KNOW which parties will get their fill for those higher level soviets.

At the end of the day, that's the most important part of the general election.
 
Last edited:
I just edited my post above to answer that question - because I anticipated someone will ask that! Haha!
I suppose in order to fill such vacancies it would indeed require party lists, although there is the question of independents as well.

And just to clarify, once a delegate is promoted he/she is no longer recallable by the people directly correct? A Washington soviet delegate is recallable by the district soviets in some manner defined by law, and the district soviets delegates are recallable by the people, but the people cannot recall a state soviet delegate?
 
I suppose in order to fill such vacancies it would indeed require party lists, although there is the question of independents as well.

And just to clarify, once a delegate is promoted he/she is no longer recallable by the people directly correct? A Washington soviet delegate is recallable by the district soviets in some manner defined by law, and the district soviets delegates are recallable by the people, but the people cannot recall a state soviet delegate?

In my opinion, the "independents" count as a separate political bloc in itself for purposes of computation, though these independent candidates do not get elected via the party-list block but through their own efforts of winning in single-member districts.

These independents will require meeting amongst themselves to elect their fill to higher-level soviets, for sure. It's not a given who's going to be promoted but you do have that section of "independents" flashing on your TV screen by Election Day results, though.

But unlike in the political parties section, we do not know who's going to make it to the next level for the most part. It's more speculatory on that front.

However, I do anticipate the anarchist-aligned independents to do their own "party discipline" in electing their own to higher levels for such purposes. For filling up vacancies of independents left in the City Council, for example, Seattle may have its own rules for special by-elections for that. But frankly, it's all inconsequential to the general election results, let's be honest.

As for recall, I think you are right to say that once the final list of all delegates in all levels gets filled up that you are recallable only by the people that elected you directly to your current level. So yes, you're right on that.

We've seen that in action in the Revolt of the Cadres.
 
Last edited:
Sorry for the double post but I think based on our earlier example that I severely underestimated the fact that if the Reds! Seattle Soviet covers the three Washington counties as depicted in that link I posted so we cover 4 million people, then that's easily more than half of the Washington SR's population.

That means that the numbers we've used are very much incorrect and inapplicable to the realities of Reds!

This is not just 650 members alone in the Seattle Soviet and that's not just 104 delegates since my example is just based on the City Council of the OTL City of Seattle, a far smaller entity than the metropolitan area.

In "reality", We can easily have a 2300-member Seattle Soviet and a 3000-member Washington SR Soviet (as of 2024).

If this looks too big and unwieldy, remember that in our world, the Petrograd Soviet got up to 3000 delegates in a city that's smaller than Seattle.

But anyway everything else that I've mentioned above regarding the electoral process still holds up.

What's different is the impact of many metropolitan area soviets in the politics of their respective "state" unless they are already on their own separate entities like Metropolis or Chicagoland.

In this case, who wins in Seattle gets the entire Washington SR easily since Seattle gets more than half of Washington Republic's Congressional seats. This is what I mean in terms of the overwhelming political impact of many cities without the OTL gerrymandering and once the impact of their demographics gets unleashed and maximized.

And that means A LOT more of the Seattle Soviet seats getting vacated due to elevation/promotion of elected delegates to higher level soviets. A lot more mobility.

As a result, one phenomenon that I can easily see due to this is the idea of nationally and regionally prominent candidates in single-member districts having de facto "running mates" out of those in the party-list block ready to fill in their eventual vacated seats.

After all, everyone knows that if they win, then they're likely to get elevated upwards leaving the post that they got directly elected from vacant anyway, which is that They're not going to stay put. They're going either to the state Capitol or to DC. So, the "running mate" becomes the real official candidate that is likely to represent the constituency in reality when the dust settles and these "running mates" given their origin in the party-list block of candidates are most likely to always win since the party-list block can cover up to half of district soviet seats, based on at least what Aelita mentioned before in Discord.

That's actually interesting since in my opinion, the role of the "running mate" in this case is to become a shock absorber in order to "localize" the candidate and distance a more unpopular candidate from the more divisive bigger issues of the general election at a national level (even they are still more likely to win anyway). For some candidates, like the de facto Premier candidate, it's unavoidable that they will be "nationalized" but for some others, it could be done.

"Localization" breeds familiarity and intimacy between the candidate and the voter and cuts the political divides. The "running mate" plays a surrogate role in that regard. "Nationalization" invites divisiveness, distance and alienation, especially if the candidate is part of an unpopular government.

There's also the fact that the proportional party representation starts to apply here.

That's why I thought of this to begin with.

A seat vacated by an SEU delegate through their promotion can only be filled up by another SEU delegate so that proportion of seats won by the SEU in the Seattle Soviet from the recent election can be preserved.

That's where the "running mate" comes in, filling up the eventual vacated seat easily.

This is not a universal phenomenon though, unless I'm wrong and underestimated things again.

These running mates are likely going to be more prevalent in states/republics where the urban areas' share of the population within the state is significantly higher than average that then allows a lot of mobility of elected delegates given these areas' greater share of the state soviet seats like in Washington.

It also makes me think about how much of the nature of UASR's general elections has less of a winner take all environment and is more about a regular shuffling of the decks. It's a bit boring but intimate.

The election coverage probably has commentators talking of seats in the All-Union Congress of Soviets like they are Electoral College votes to be won to get to that magic number. They are yet to be filled on Election Day anyway. All the elections are local. The "real" election of that national body happens later.

It's also inevitable to see A LOT of German-style coalition governments at the district level given the nature of the electoral system of MMP and party-list proportionality. It's going to be way less frequent at the state and federal levels due to the "gerrymandering" but I can easily see some possibilities of single-party minority governments or those with de facto confidence and supply agreements.

Aelita even mentioned a few times about "grand coalitions" between Liberation and Communist Labor (and eventually SEU) if necessary in order to hold off the DFLP and/or DRP if they become too strong of a minority opposition. Too much of an annoyance basically.

I think it's because of a combination of bad foreign policy and inherent conservatism on the nature of communization. It's the "Bordiga" within Aelita showing up, I think.

Those two parties are more tolerable partners in local and regional politics but definitely not national, so this is the DFLP and DRP playing a Die Linke role, if not an EFF role in the current South African environment.

But the entire thing sounds very German to me.
 
Last edited:
Comintern Organizations
Organizations associated with Communist International (c. 2024)

Young Communist International (Youthintern)
Founded: 1921

Dedicated to organizing the youth sections of Comintern parties. Originally meant to ensure internal discipline and loyalty from young communist parties, during the 1960's, it became more focused on building more independent student driven political movements and educating young people in political participation.

Prominent members:

UASR: All-Union Student League for Industrial Democracy
USSR: All-Union Leninist Young Communist League (Komsomol)
FSRD: Ernst Thälmann Pioneer Organization (Pionierorganisation Ernst Thälmann)
DB: Young Red Front (Junge Rotfront)
North Italy: Italian Communist Youth Federation
South Italy: Red Youth Brigades
Mexico: Federation of Young Communists
FBU: Communist Youth League
Zhōnghuá: Chinese Democratic Students League
Nippon: Levellers Youth League of Nippon
Choson: Socialist Youth League
India: All-Indian Youth Federation
EAF: Socialist Youth Union
Australasia: Eureka Youth League
Brazil: Socialist Youth Union
Congo: Patrice Lumumba National Youth Federation
Iran: United Democratic Youth Organization


Red International of Labor Unions (Profintern)
Formed: 1920

Dedicated towards organizing and supporting communist affiliated labor unions, and maintaining focus on anti-imperialist struggles and internationally minded strikes.

Prominent affiliates:

The Americas: Pan-American Industrial Workers Unity League (merger of the Trade Union Unity League and the Confederation of Latin American Trade Unions)
East/South Asia: Pan-Asian Trade Union Secretariat (formerly the Pan-Pacific Trade Union Secretariat)
West Asia/MENA: Lower Eurasian Labor Federation
Europe: Pan-European Labor Alliance (formerly the London, Paris, Berlin, and Bulgarian Bureaus)
Africa: Pan-African Trade Union Committee (formerly the International Trade Union Committee of Negro Workers)


Red Sports International (Sportsintern)
Formed: 1921

Dedicated towards maintaining worker focused sports bodies, standardizing physical fitness standards and rules for international sporting (within Comintern and affiliate parties), and organizing international sports competitions amongst workers parties and nations. Famous for holding the "Spartakaids" as counterprogramming to the Olympics, and ironically, also being the main Olympic Committee for Comintern nations.

Prominent Bureaus:

Baseball International
Basketball International
Rugby International
Football International (Soccer)
Congress for American Football (Gridiron)
International Committee for Red Ice Hockey
International Association for the Spartakaids and Olympics
Red Gymnastics
Red eSports


International Red Aid (MOPR)
Formed: 1922
Successor to (assumed the function of) the International Relief Association (founded 1931) in 1950
Successor to (assumed the function of) the International Emergency Rescue Committee (founded 1936) in 1950


Originally meant as a counterbalance to the International Red Cross, providing aid and support for besieged communist organizations and activists around the world, has expanded its focus starting in the 1950's to helping oppressed peoples around the world, providing legal aid to political prisoners, and sending volunteer aid workers and doctors to devastated locations around the world. Famed for their "Red Care" packages to areas in need, and delivering livestock and other farm animals to countries ravaged by the World Revolutionary War through people and ships that became known as "seagoing cowboys".

Criticised for working with charities in capitalist nations in their mission, including the Emergency Capacity Building Project (ECB Project) that aims to improve the speed, effectiveness and delivery of response programs.

Medicine Without Borders (MWB)
Formed: 1971

Branch of Red Aid focused on delivering medicine and proper medical care "without borders". Made specifically in response to famines in Ethiopia, South Africa, and Burma and the need for specialised medical aid. Rose to prominence due to the widespread famine and devastation from conflicts in the 80's. Considered one of the premier world charities, with their presence often noted in various conflict or disaster areas.

World Education, Science, Culture, Environmental and Peace Organization (WESCEPO)

Formed: 1991
Successor to the World Peace Council (1949–91)
Successor to the Alliance for Earth (1976–91)


Dedicated towards advocating for "world peace", often with a focus on cultural, scientific, and environmental cooperation between various communist organizations. Often works to protect landmarks, build up local arts and science institutions, and promote sustainable tourism practices (including protections against overtourism and protecting locals from exploitation) Seen as a deliberate response to UNESCO, with some criticizing its open political advocacy, while others praise its more constructive, localised approach to cooperation.

International League Against Sex and Gender Oppression (ILASGO)
Formed: 1997
Successor to the Communist Womens' International (CWI, 1920–97)
Successor to the International Congress of Gender and Sexual Minorities (COGSMIN, 1971–97)


Dedicated to opposing all forms of patriarchal and heteronormative oppression, as well as to combating sexual abuse and ensuring reproductive rights, bodily autonomy and sexual health. Formed following reorganization in response to the overlapping functions of the CWI, formed in the early days of the Comintern, and the COGSMIN, established under the French communist Daniel Guerin in 1971 in response to the rising recognition of oppression against USAT+ individuals across the communist bloc. All the womens' and queer wings of communist parties are considered affiliates of the organization.

World League Against Prejudice (WLP)
Formed: 1947
Successor to the League Against Imperialism (1927–1947)
Successor to the Jewish Anti-Discrimination League of the Communist International (1933–1947)


Dedicated to opposing all forms of racial, ethnic and religious oppression across the world. Initially, the Jewish Anti-Discrimination League was formed in response to the rise of Hitlerism in Germany and the high incidence rate of antisemitism in Central Europe, initially consisting of various Jewish political organizations across the TCI (such as the Jewish-American Labour Bund).

In the aftermath of the Global Anti-Fascist War, the JADL was reorganised and merged with the preexisting League Against Imperialism to form the WLP to bring attention to, and combat all forms of racism and discrimination across the world, such as Indian caste discrimination, discrimination against indigenous peoples in Latin America, and Angevin discrimination against Africans.

Red Peasants International (Krestintern)
Formed: 1923

Dedicated to supporting workers in agricultural fields, with a focus on decolonization and backing local socialist parties, as well as building international standards for food and agriculture across the world. Originally dedicated to building relationships with peasant parties in China and Eastern Europe, gradually shifted its focus to anti-imperialism, with a focus on Africa, India, and South America. Has mainly supported Zapatismo organizations within that particular sphere in recent decades and has provided aid such as farming equipment and crops. Internally, they focus on standardizing nutrition and ensuring farming practices are up to date and beneficial.

International Transportation and Standardization Bureau (ITSB)
Formed: 1950 (as the "Rail, Air, and Water Bureau")
Reorganised in 1974 as ITSB


Dedicated towards rationalizing safety and infrastructure standards, as well as proper use of units within time systems and transportation, and coordinating investigations between members of the Comintern and affiliated parties with regards to civilian transportation accidents and incidents. Produces an annual series of reviews to ensure units of measurement (using the "kilogram-meter-second" version of the metric system). A series of infamous aviation disasters in the First Detente led to its reorganization into its current iteration.

International Collective of Automakers (ICA)
Formed: 1953
Transferred to ITSB: 1974


One notable sub-bureau of the ITSB being the International Collective of Automakers, established in 1953 as the main collective research and production association of automotive innovation in the TCI, following the adoption of the 1947 Detroit Plan at the Congress of the Communist International, and further expanded with the 1961 'Moonshot' Project jointly undertaken by the United Republics, Czechoslovakia, and Free Socialist Germany.

International Motor Sports Association (IMSA)
Formed: 1950
Successor of the Global Motorsports Club (1934-1941)


Founded as a sanctioning body for motorsport racing in 1950, the IMSA was intended to serve as a way to revitalise the American motorsports scene following WWII with standardised rulesets and specs.

It would quickly expand as Czechoslovakia became a motoring giant in the 50s and 60s, and subsequently receive attention and backing from most of the TCI's automotive development houses during the Moonshot Project.

It serves as a de facto competitor to and affiliate of the FIA and FIM, with the FIA in particular often following IMSA's lead in certain matters, with the Silhouette-Production Car split following the collapse of Group B Rallying as an often cited example.

One notable controversy was when the World Endurance Championship shifted over to IMSA's Sanctioning for the 1994 season, following the Maggieham scandal of 1992 and the cancellation of the 1993 season.

International Standards Organization (ISO)
Formed: 1935 under COMECON
Transferred to ISTB: 1974


This organization was founded under the auspices of the Treaty of Leningrad as a subsidiary of the COMECON to develop and publish international standards in technical and nontechnical fields, including everything from manufactured products and technology to food safety, agriculture, and healthcare.

Council for Mutual Economic and Technological Assistance (COMETA)
Formed: 1983
Successor to the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) (formed 1935)
Successor to the International Technology Council (ITC) (formed 1965)


De facto global economic planning agency of the Communist International. Dedicated to maintaining the standards of economic planning across various nations, maintaining supply chains, balancing supply and demand, keeping credits consistent, and monitoring new technologies. Also, through its subgroups CIDF and CITC, provides grants to struggling nations and maintains both intra- and inter-bloc currency exchange. Publishes reports on the effects of technology and the potential utility of new technology, releasing guidelines on standardization of these new technologies which are formalised by their respective industrial organizations and thereafter adopted by individual state planning bureaus.

Communist International Development Fund (CIDF)
Formed: 1935
Subordinated to COMETA in 1991


Founded by the Treaty of Leningrad, its initial task is to extend credit to Comintern states for economic development, provide emergency aid to the same, and to supervise international finance between them. It was funded by a combination of mandatory and voluntary deposits from all contributing states while also serving as a lender of last resort for all Comintern central banks. It may also choose, under extraordinary circumstances, to forgive outstanding obligations owed by specific members.

It also supervised the fixed-exchange rates pegged to the UASR dollar on terms set out by the 1935 Leningrad Treaty and by the 1943 Detroit Conference, where the initial ideas that led to the "Arduous March" were hatched by the representatives of America, Zhonghua, and the Soviet Union.

Each contributing member state has a delegation to its central body, the Congress of the CIDF, which elects a nine-member Executive Committee. The Congress also serves as a watchdog and sets broader policy which is carried out by the Executive Committee.

By the time of the World Revolutionary War, the CIDF's role drastically expanded from a relatively modest body acting as an international clearinghouse to a major source of finance for the entire Comintern.

Since the bloc's transition to lower-stage communism by the 1990s, it has exercised the exclusive right to authorise the issuance of the TCI labor vouchers and set their expiration dates, or approve the volume of their issuance by other central and member banks. It also issues transferable certificates of credit to AFS companies, which they can sell in currency markets for other currencies, or to get vouchers for use to buy Comintern exports.

Common International Trade Council (CITC)
Formed: 1942
Subordinated into the CIDF in 1947
Transferred to COMETA in 1991


Initially formed to control the allocation of Lend-Lease aid to the Franco-British Union, this organization deals with economic relations between the Comintern and the AFS on a global stage, coordinating with countries, collectives, and businesses from both blocs to facilitate Comintern entry into AFS markets and vice-versa.

Has been accused of favoritism for one side or the other, notably by the Wall government of the FBU.

Council for Computational Machine Standards (CCMS)
Formed: 1947
Subordinated to COMETA in 1985


An institutional bureau of the Communist International formed primarily by American and Soviet computational technology research groups in the aftermath of the creation of ENIAC in 1946 and the subsequent development of Project Athena.

The CCMS was primarily responsible for the proliferation of the "Bell Labs Standard" for the development of mainframe computer systems, the Multics operating system (and subsequent derivatives such as Multix and Berkeley Multix/BMX), both of which saw widespread adoption in academic, industrial and commercial environments. Subsequent personal computer standards were also established by the CCMS beginning with the release of the "Machine Standard for Exchange" (MSX) standard in 1975 and the Consolidated Workstation Standard (CWS) in 1980.

While at first very defensive of their autonomy within the Communist International (such as their refusal to disband and merge with the ITC outright in the 1960s), by the mid-1980s, in anticipation of the proliferation of Scalable Processor Architectures and the implementation of wider state-planning during the transition away from market economics, the CCMS was formally moved under the purview of the COMETA ("Council for Mutual Economic and Technological Assistance", see above) which had been founded two years prior.

Cybersyn Architecture Board (CAB)

Formed: 1975
Subordinated to the International Technology Council (1975-1983)
Subordinated to COMETA in 1983


It provides architectural oversight of Cybersyn network protocols and procedures, managing Cybersyn standards documents as well as addressing appeals over CETF standards decisions.

Cybersyn Engineering Task Force (CETF)
Formed: 1968
Subordinated to the newly created Cybersyn Architecture Board in 1975


Initially founded as an American government body associated with ARPANET but it was internationalised by its merger with the Soviet Union's Automated State System of Economic Management/National Automated System for Computation and Information Processing (OGAS), becoming what became known as Project Cybersyn.

It soon became a working group that proposes standards related to the Internet protocol suite.

It is also known for introducing innovations like the Reverse Address Resolution Protocol, Distributed Channel Transport over IP, File Transfer Protocol and Telnet.

Cybersyn Assigned Numbers Authority (CANA)
Formed: 1972
Subordinated to the newly created Cybersyn Architecture Board in 1975


Known as the "root manager" of the Cybersyn zone of the Internet, it is responsible for the maintenance and procedures of several databases related to the namespaces and numerical spaces of the Cybersyn network. It also handles DNS root zone registries, root name servers and Internet Address pools. It also handles the assignment of IP address blocks to regional registries under their own regional working groups.

It oversees Cybersyn-zone IP address allocation, autonomous system number allocation, root zone management in the Domain Name System, media types, and other Internet Protocol-related symbols and Internet numbers. It is also known for handling and maintaining the "CANA time zone database".

International Liaison Department (OMS)
Formed: 1921

Widely considered the Comintern's intelligence agency, dedicated to (secretly) providing aid and structural support to communist parties and groups within capitalist nations. Officially the "liaisons" between Comintern and local parties, they provide direction and techniques for groups to more effectively push against their capitalist governments, as well as keep the group cohesive and ensure that they can escape any government persecution. Most active in hot spots and officially neutral nations, where they can also provide weapons and intelligence against the enemy. Most associated with spies and double agents within capitalist nations.

Joint Revolutionary Military Council (JRMC)
Formed: 1942 as a non-Comintern organization
Subordinated to ECCI during the 1950 World Congress


Supreme command organ of the International Revolutionary Armed Forces (INTREV), including the Revolutionary International Volunteer Army (RIVA). Presided over by the Chairperson of the JRMC, who is a member of the Executive Committee of the Comintern. Membership includes the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chairperson of the RIVA Command Council, the Chairperson of COMETA, and representatives from multiple international military-economic, intelligence, and security organizations.

The JRMC only meets twice a year or so, typically to discuss and finalise changeovers in the command of the INTREV Regional Commands and their subordinate Groups of Forces. The exception is when all-Comintern military coordination is necessary - the last time this function of the JRMC was activated was the Comintern interventions in the Azanian Bush War, Indonesian Civil War, and the Crescent Crisis.

The JRMC is also referred to as the World-Stavka, International Stavka, or simply Stavka, a reference to the Global Anti-Fascist War military coordination organization between the WFRA and RKKA.

Administrative Committee for Liberated International Territories (ACLIT)
Formed: 1945 as the "Commissariat for the Administration of JDPON"
Reorganised in 1958 as "Administrative Committee for Liberated International Territories"


Formed as an informal communist successor to the League of Nations Trustee System and as a response to the formation of the United Nations Trusteeship Council, ACLIT was formed in 1945 in the anticipation of the establishment of Comintern occupation governments in Germany, Italy, Japan and other Axis nations.

The formation of JDPON-Germany in 1946 was the first territory to be administered by the TCI organ that would become ACLIT.

In 1958, the commissariat was disbanded and reformed into the Administrative Committee for Liberated International Territories– a catch-all administrative group for post-colonial country relations, common territories such as the pre-referendum Straits Territory, Antarctica, the cosmos, and any further JDPONs (such as JDPON-Albania and JDPON-Romania).
 
Last edited:


Used both with and without accent, China. For both the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China of OTL, the word for China they use, with the caveat that the ROC uses the traditional character for hua, where the PRC uses the simplified (Zhong is unchanged, traditional vs simplified). I get the impression that it's literal meaning is something like 'the magnificent center' but practically refers to China in some sort of national way, as a de-emphazation of the traditional one of Zhonggou, which is implicitly monarchical.

Last time China was mentioned, they were referred to as just China.

Anyway, this has been your @ExNihilo's paying inordinant attention to minor details diversion.
 
Considering the history of Romania OTL while it was a part of the Soviet sphere of influence, I'd hazard a guess it wound up similarly being... not exactly the most reliable member of the Communist Bloc, and that in this TL, said unreliability would not be permitted.

No guesses on what might have happened with regards to Albania, though.
 
Hoxha decides that Comintern is overrated, Comintern disagrees and invades to kick him and his clique out.

Not a spoiler, since it was alluded to.

Yeah - basically all that "anti-Soviet" communism that Hoxha tried to implement OTL to cozy up to China? Comintern don't take kindly to that kind of factionalism. You can then also look at Romania's own domestic Kimilsungism attempts... and extrapolate.
 
FSRD: Ernst Thälmann Pioneer Organization (Pionierorganisation Ernst Thälmann)
Pioneers are schoolchildren aged 9 to 14, and it would be incorrect to call a youth organization of a broader nature this way. The analogue of the Komsomol in the GDR was historically the Free German Youth (officially existing since 1946, but the main one was various youth emigrant organizations of anti-fascists united back in 1938). Here, logically, it would be more likely to use The Young Communist League of Germany (the original youth organization of German communists), since the communist aspect is much more emphasized, and besides, the KAPD did not have its own youth organization - it is more logical to use the one that already exists.

(In general, I admit that I had an idea that the pioneers should, in the conditions of a multi-party dictatorship of the proletariat, become a "broad front" for school-age children - to ensure socialist education and involvement of the most active of them. While the organizations of high school students and students will already be tied to specific parties)
 
Back
Top