What is Proletarian Internationalism?

What is it?

What is proletarian internationalism? It can be defined as “workers of the world unite!”-(communist manifesto Marx and Engels). But what exactly does this mean? It means the total negation of the national state relation, total support for the proletariat and its interests, the rejection of nationalism in all of its petty forms, for the complete support of the world revolution. Internationalism seeks the destruction of the law of value. This is the internationalism that Marx and Engels formulated, and it is this internationalism whose very meaning has been turned inside out and been made to mean nothing short of liberal internationalism. The Stalinists have turned internationalism into supporting communist parties abroad and anti-fascist movements and into defending the country that “built socialism” within itself. But Juche, an important one to say the least, is one I want to discuss and analyze its internationalism. “Nationalism does not conflict with internationalism. Mutual help, support and alliance between countries and nations-this is internationalsim”-(having a correct understanding of nationalism kin jong-il) Look at this!! A so-called marxist wrote this!! This internationalism is nothing short of liberal internationalism. Internationalism is not ever this degeneracy. Not a single word about the class struggle, not a single word about supporting the proletarian, not a single word about the proletarian revolution. Instead we are meant to believe that proletarian internationalism is the support and alliance between countries! Can’t you see comrades, the complete destruction of the whole meaning of internationalism is in full swing. No marxist could ever say this is internationalism. Do we forget that the proletariat have no fatherland? Do we forget that with capital and the world market grabbing everything and internationalizing it class struggle becomes international? Clearly we do. Now let's return to the stalinist distortion of internationalism. "An internationalist is one who is ready to defend the U.S.S.R. without reservation, without wavering, unconditionally; for the U.S.S.R. is the base of the world revolutionary movement, and this revolutionary movement cannot be defended and promoted unless the U.S.S.R. is defended. For whoever thinks of defending the world revolutionary movement apart from, or against, the U.S.S.R., goes against the revolution and must inevitably slide into the camp of the enemies of the revolution."-(J. V. Stalin Joint Plenum of the Central Committee and Central Control Commission of the C.P.S.U.(B.) July 29 - August 9, 1927). Could one even call this internationalism? So if I support the USA because it's the world's dominant capitalist country does that make me an internationalist? One could say the comintern. But once we look at what the Comintern's functions were turned into a protective organization that would order the “communist” parties to organize strikes etc to protect the USSR and not to further the class struggle. This is not internationalism, this is bourgeois patriotism. Not a single mention about class struggle in Stalin's speech, nothing about capitalism and the world market and nothing about the world revolution. Stalin simply talked about internationalism so he could claim he was a marxist. We saw this so-called internationalism after the second imperialist war, the “communist” parties had a significant amount of forces that were armed, especially in france and italy, and with the red army not even being 1,000 miles from paris a european revolution could have been successful, but his majesty stalin said no! (see revolutionarydemocracy.org) To say the revolution would have failed due to insufficient forces and weapons is to throw out the very meaning of revolution. Revolutions are not some act that can be determined by weapons, they are the revolt in class struggle, they are a world historical act of world historical conditions and classes. Revolutions are unlinear, this is due to the law of the world market, due to the internationalization of capital.

Position on Reactionary Wars

The Position on reactionary wars is an important one and its one of the most important issues in internationalism. But in order to understand we must first understand what a reactionary war is. A reactionary war is a war waged by the bourgeoisie and it interests a war for accumulation of profit and for the accumulation of capital. And position on the wars is a very simple and quite obvious one, "The German workers’ position in the van of the European movement rests essentially on their genuinely international attitude during the war; no other proletariat would have behaved so well."-(Engels to August Bebel 1875) Here from Engels we see the only correct attitude towards the war, an international attitude. But what does an international attitude mean? It is the complete and active support for all countries defeat in such a war, as once a country loses (especially during an imperialist war) it rapidly creates crisis and sharpens the blade of class struggle in favor for the proletariat, therefore sparking the world revolution. An international attitude is complete support for the workers revolution. This is the truly marxist position called revolutionary defeatism.

Relation to National Liberation

To be an internationalist is to oppose the bourgeois national liberation movements. National liberation movements in our epoch of finance capital are undoubtedly reactionary. To support national liberation movements as something “essential” or progressive is everything contrary to the world revolution. National liberation movements achieve nothing progressive, they are utterly regressive in our epoch. The very reason Marx supported national liberation movements, is because most non great powers were predominantly in the feudal mode of production (Note this does not mean the social revolution was not possible if it still meant the material requirements) and the number of proletarians were either extremely small or non-existent, and national liberation movements objectively helped the proletarian movement. As 1: “liberation” forces were led by the national bourgeoisie and by progressives, and in a country with an underdeveloped social productive force of the bourgeoisie, capitalism was undoubtedly helpful. 2: It would weaken empires and cause sparks for liberation all over Europe, and maybe even the world. This was absolutely progressive, especially in the face of tsarism, of which Russia was the last reserve of European reaction. Marx and Engels saw the defeat of tsarism as an essential point for the victory of the socialist revolution in Europe. These are the very reasons Marx and Engels supported the national liberation movements. But why shouldn't we? In the epoch of finance capital the merging of banking capital and industrial capital’s interests it as turned the state in an oppressed country into the state of the oppressor, i.e the state is built for finance capital and overthrowing it in a country which is already developed the social productive forces necessary for the socialist revolution, a changing of leadership changes nothing for the proletariat. And for capitalism’s further development? It changes nothing, once the social productive forces of the bourgeoisie have been sufficiently developed in a country, the socialist revolution there is possible. Hence allowance and support for capitalism's further development and calling it progressive in our epoch is utterly reactionary and an idealist formulation. We thus see that in our epoch we can not reap the same benefits from national liberation as Marx and Engels did. So then what is the correct attitude towards national liberation? It is to treat it as another bourgeois war, to support the utmost defeat for all bourgeois sides and for the utmost support for the workers' revolutions.

Relation to Nations

For an internationalist, their position on nations is a defining point of internationalism. The only marxist position on nations, is of course the obliteration of nations. An unyielding hostility towards all nations. We as internationalists stand for the obliteration of nations. We can’t ever support any nation. If a nation exists it can’t serve our interests. As if one exists on the very thing we seek to destroy (the world market) it has reproduced capitalist social relations and has thrown away its task of the revolutionary transformation of the world. You can’t transform society if you are reproducing capitalist relations of production. We seek the abolition of the law of value not its reproduction.

Internationalism and Revolution

The relation between internationalism and the socialist revolution is where we find the goals of proletarian internationalism and its followers. But first we must understand what the socialist revolution is. (I will not assume my reader has read my previous writing on the subject.) So what is the socialist revolution? Or more precisely how can it be made possible? Engels gives us the requirements of the socialist revolution, "The revolution that modern socialism strives to achieve is, briefly, the victory of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie and the establishment of a new organisation of society by the destruction of all class distinctions. This requires not only a proletariat to carry out this revolution, but also a bourgeoisie in whose hands the social productive forces have developed so far that they permit the final destruction of class distinctions."-(On Social Relations in Russia Frederick Engels 1874) Thus as we see here the socialist revolution needs the proletariat to even happen, as the proletariat is the only revolutionary class in the epoch of capitalism. The socialist revolution also requires the bourgeoisie and its relations of production. Why? As this is what creates the proletariat as a class. The socialist revolution also requires the social productive forces of the bourgeoisie to be developed in order to have the means to abolish the class distinctions. But what does Engels mean? Engels doesn’t set a deadline or talk about when these social productive forces are sufficiently developed, but from what we understand about bourgeois society and its relations and mode of production, we see thus clearly that Engels was talking about industrial capitalism and a developed bourgeois society. But to what level of development in industrial capitalism is needed for the social productive forces needed to abolish class distinctions by the proletariat? Firstly: the proletariat needs to be developed to the point where their goals and organizations correspond with the goal to abolish capitalism and its relations. Secondly: that means that bourgeois industrial development in the cities (not countryside as well) create the conditions where the proletariat will revolt against the totality of capital i.e strikes, form political parties and other forms of political and economic warfare against the bourgeoisie. And with this development, correspondingly the goals of class struggle are the establishment of the co-operative society. This development is extremely rapid and uneven, as the development of the world economy corresponds to this development of social productive forces. The relation between the world market and revolutions is one of unlinearness, especially the socialist revolution. Since the dawn of the proletariat and the social productive forces for a socialist revolution, the world market has made it international and simultaneous. But how? The world market, with its dawn and the development of capitalism, it internationalized capital, this in turn destroyed any “national” economy as an independent thing, as due to the internationalization of capital and especially in the epoch of industrial capitalism, all economies became intertwined with each other, therefore internationalizing all economic development. This is something Marx and Engels noticed in especially the 1840s and 1850s (see class struggles in France). But what does it really mean that the socialist revolution is unlinear? It means once the socialist revolution breaks in one country it sends ripples, like a wave, all over the world and sparking a revolutionary crisis or a revolution of its own. This is due to the world market. Due to this internationalization of economic development and an interdependence of each other, due to the world market, the proletariat revolution in order to live it must strike at the dispatch of the world market. It must wage a revolutionary war to bring the destruction of the world market, it must destroy the law of value on an international scale. As Marx said, the socialist revolution's task is the revolutionary transformation of the world, not reproducing capitalist social relations of production to survive in the world market. "The republic encountered no resistance, either abroad or at home. This disarmed its task was no longer the Revolutionary transformation of the world. But constituted only adapting itself to the relations of bourgeois society."-(Karl Marx Class Struggles in France chapter 1). We as internationalists stand for the obliteration of nations and we see this task as immediate. And once the workers break the chains that hold them to the ground, the socialist revolution in one country merely represents the insurrectionary detachment of the world revolution. This is the workers state. And if the workers state ceases its hostility to all capital and the world market, this hostility is insurrectionary, its task is no longer the revolutionary transformation of the world, but the reproduction of capitalist social relations to survive on the world market, in turn ceasing to be the dictatorship of the proletariat, ceasing to be the detachment of the world revolution. We therefore stand for the destruction of the bourgeoisie and its social relations of production.

Conclusion

The meaning to be an internationalist is as follows: to stand with the proletariat and with its goals, no compromise, unyielding hostility towards the world market and the law of value, to seek the destruction of capitalist social relations, the revolutionary transformation of the world. As we can not interpret the world, our point is to change it.