Proletarian transnationality

[Ol' Dirty]

Throughout the history of scientific socialism, there have been "Internationals," meetings of leading labor movement activists. But today, the model seems outdated. With the globalization of information and communication, might it be time to abandon periodic labor meetings between states to foster worker's identy from the bottom rather than the top?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I agree with you completely. The organizational politics between "(inter") nations must be superceded by an organizational politics beyond ("trans") nations. Did you get this terminology from material on transnational corporations? ;)

[bricolage]

Yes! It's not about cooperation between nations it's about saying fuck nations!

[rosa-rl]

The proletariat has no country and is an international class however there are things that for security reasons can not be taken up on the internet - although many many things can be taken up this way.

Transnationals - btw- are always rooted in one nation or another and are not what would be considered international by Communist standards.

[Tomhet]

Yes! It's not about cooperation between nations it's about saying fuck nations!This post is simple, and blunt.
Yet, I'd have to absolutely agree 100%!

[Ol' Dirty]

No, I got it from previous conversations on internationalism and nat. lib. struggles, but I know what you're saying.

[Il Medico]

I agree. The proletariat has no country. Internationals have been useful in the past, however, we must move beyond the national identification of workers and the separation of these movements, and promote class (transnational) identification of workers. The Class Struggle of the Proletariat belongs to the workers of the world, not just of single countries.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Yes! It's not about cooperation between nations it's about saying fuck nations!

Yeah, fuck nations bro! :rolleyes:

Some people identify with "their nation" very strongly, for whatever reasons, and by simply saying "fuck nations" your giving out the wrong message; how are you ever going to win over people towards socialist politics if your saying something like that? Are we supposed to say 'fuck you' to an oppressed nation seeking self-determination or independence, like Palestine as a shining example?

We reject nationalism as it divides workers into idealistic, artificial groups solely based on ethnicity or culture, which as a result reinforces the supposed validity of bourgeois rule instead of class consciousness and worker's organization. The problem with nationalism is it neglects the simple fact that society is divided by classes and not by nationalities, there fore it is about cooperation between nations, cooperation between all nations to overthrow their respective capitalists that is. That is what proletarian-inter-nationalism means.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie."

[Ol' Dirty]

"Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle. The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie."

Perhaps in 1848, but not in the 21st century. The bourgoisie now crosses borders at will with Regional Trade Agreements "RTA's" and Transnational Corporations (TNCs). The boundaries between nations are constantly whithering away, with global markets dictating the fates of millions. The recent capitalist fiscal scare was an occurence in the global market, not in one country. Just as those who work for bourgoisie interests transcend national borders, the proletariat must do the same, and take it to a higher level.

[Il Medico]

^ Indeed.
Bourgeois nations states are only still around because they are useful to the bourgeois. Nation states are founded on a sense of pride and superiority of one's own nation. This feeling called 'nationalism' is used by the bourgeois to legitimize the use of the forces of the nation state to protect and promote capitalist interest. Such imperialist exploitation of entire groups of people could never be carried out in a world without nation states. Nation states have been abandoned as the central engine of bourgeois economic production and is now used for only the insurance of maintaining the status quo in regards to the expoltative realtionship between the first world bourgeois and third world porletariat.

[ComradeOm]

Marxists reject nationalism - that is we reject those who argue that national interest supersedes or replaces class interest - but we do not reject the fact that nations exist or that there are indeed ethnic or cultural differences between the workers of different nations. The truth is that a French worker has grown up and works in a different environment to that of an Irish worker, for example. Both face different challenges in different ways. We reject the idea that one is superior/inferior to the other or that these are lasting or fundamental divisions between the two (the crux of nationalism) but we cannot simply close our eyes to objective reality

International socialism is not a matter of ignoring national differences. It calls for workers of each country to show solidarity towards workers of other nations without necessarily calling for the abolition of the nationstate itself


Perhaps in 1848, but not in the 21st century. The bourgoisie now crosses borders at will with Regional Trade Agreements "RTA's" and Transnational Corporations (TNCs). The boundaries between nations are constantly whithering away, with global markets dictating the fates of millions. The recent capitalist fiscal scare was an occurence in the global market, not in one country. Just as those who work for bourgoisie interests transcend national borders, the proletariat must do the same, and take it to a higher level.Whereas when Marx was writing the nationstate was not even the dominant form of international organisation. During his lifetime the vast majority of Europe's population lived in transnational empires; of which the Ottomans and Austro-Hungary are probably the best examples. The case that national borders have become less important than they were in Marx's day seems fairly baseless. The barriers constructed during the past century are certainly coming down but then these were never present, to any degree at least, when Marx was writing


Bourgeois nations states are only still around because they are useful to the bourgeois. Nation states are founded on a sense of pride and superiority of one's own nationYou are condensing the long and complicated evolution of the nationstate (one intricately bound up in the organic evolution of capitalism itself) into the simplistic 'Its a bourgeois tool' line?

I do love however how you profess to agree with MuigiKalash yet take the opposite position entirely on the importance of the nationstate ;)

[JohnnyC]

Some people identify with "their nation" very strongly, for whatever reasons, and by simply saying "fuck nations" your giving out the wrong message; how are you ever going to win over people towards socialist politics if your saying something like that?
No nations principle is a part of Marxist politics.Communists know that "nations" are artificial communities that will not exist in communist society.That's what we fight for, and that's what we should say to people.It's maybe not popular, but neither communism is and that doesn't mean we should stop talking about it.



We reject nationalism as it divides workers into idealistic, artificial groups solely based on ethnicity or culture, which as a result reinforces the supposed validity of bourgeois rule instead of class consciousness and worker's organization. The problem with nationalism is it neglects the simple fact that society is divided by classes and not by nationalities
I completely agree with you here.



there fore it is about cooperation between nations, cooperation between all nations to overthrow their respective capitalists that is. That is what proletarian-inter-nationalism means.
Only while capitalism exist we are supposed to propagate cooperation between nations, but that is not our final goal.Our final goal is communism, and in communism nations will dissolve/cease to exist.

As Engels said: The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.

[Il Medico]

You are condensing the long and complicated evolution of the nationstate (one intricately bound up in the organic evolution of capitalism itself) into the simplistic 'Its a bourgeois tool' line?
I was trying to explain how nation states of the developed world are currently being used. I was not explaining how they evolved. As I said in the past, and in the developing world, the nation state is the most important factor of economic production. However, in first world nations like America, the economy has shifted from a production to consumer economy. Thus the international, or transnational bourgeois use these powerful and developed nation states to insure their economic interest abroad. They are no longer just a tool to oppress their own proletariat, but the world proletariat, which is why the proletariat also has to move to a transnational approach.


I do love however how you profess to agree with MuigiKalash yet take the opposite position entirely on the importance of the nationstate ;)
I don't see how I underestimated their importance in the slightest. Nation states are main tool of class oppression in the capitalist system. Without them, the bourgeois could not have established and maintained the dominance they have over the proletariat. They are of the utmost importance, next to the bourgeois themselves, they are the greatest enemy of the proletariat.

[mykittyhasaboner]

No nations principle is a part of Marxist politics.Communists know that "nations" are artificial communities that will not exist in communist society.That's what we fight for, and that's what we should say to people.It's maybe not popular, but neither communism is and that doesn't mean we should stop talking about it.
This is simply incorrect, "no nations" isn't a part of any Marxist principles or anything of the sort. Nations aren't artificial, they are very real, and until this is understood one cannot possibly hope to answer the "national question". In the long run, yes we strive to see a society that isn't divided by nation-states, however this isn't a goal we can achieve until we have cooperation between the workers of all countries in our goal of overthrowing capitalism.

Arbitrarily calling for the abolition of all nations is what is really superficial here, because there's simply no reason behind it except for some vague (mis)understanding of proletarian internationalism.


I completely agree with you here.

Indeed.


Only while capitalism exist we are supposed to propagate cooperation between nations, but that is not our final goal.Our final goal is communism, and in communism nations will dissolve/cease to exist.
Borders, economic/class divisions, all these things that 'nations' are comprised of will most likely cease to exist eventually; however this is such a weak and hypothetical argument that it simply has no basis in our reality. Cooperation between nations should be advocated when said countries are based on the rule of the working classes; why only under capitalism, when the bourgeosie still rule, should we only then advocate cooperation between countries? This seems very contradictory, because on one hand you call of the abolition of capitalism, but on the other you think cooperation between nations should only exist while capitalism is still the dominant mode of production.


As Engels said: The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.
This is something everyone here agrees with. However this doesn't specify any real alternative or any kind of realistic plan to abolish nations. We know that proletarian revolutions did not succeed in spreading through out industrialized European countries at the same general time as Marx and Engels had thought it would. All this boils down to really, is speculation on how nations should simply fade away as a result of the abolition of private property. But what if this does not happen in every country at once? The international proletarian class struggle, is in fact at first a national struggle; the national bourgeoisie of a given country must be overthrown by the working class of said country.

[robbo203]

Part of the problem is that some on the left still cling to the outdated and, if I might say so , contradictory notion of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (not to be confused with the vanguardist dictatorship over the proletariat as in state capitalist Russia et el), This prolongs the existence of the nation state needlessly. Nation states are constructs of capitalism and will disappear with capitalism. For this very reason, incidentally, to advocate "national liberation" struggle which inevitably means propounding nationalist sentiments impedes any genuine movement to get rid of capitalism

[ZeroNowhere]

Part of the problem is that some on the left still cling to the outdated and, if I might say so , contradictory notion of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (not to be confused with the vanguardist dictatorship over the proletariat as in state capitalist Russia et el), This prolongs the existence of the nation state needlessly. Nation states are constructs of capitalism and will disappear with capitalism. For this very reason, incidentally, to advocate "national liberation" struggle which inevitably means propounding nationalist sentiments impedes any genuine movement to get rid of capitalismI don't see how exactly believing in (ie. supporting) proletarian revolution means supporting nation-states. ;)

[robbo203]

I don't see how exactly believing in (ie. supporting) proletarian revolution means supporting nation-states. ;)


No Im not suggesting "proletarian revolution" means that. What I am talking about is the notion of a proletarian state following the proletarian revolution. To me the proletarian revolution must involve the self abolition of the proletarian class and hence the state as an instrument of class rule

[ZeroNowhere]

No Im not suggesting "proletarian revolution" means that. What I am talking about is the notion of a proletarian state following the proletarian revolution. To me the proletarian revolution must involve the self abolition of the proletarian class and hence the state as an instrument of class rulePerhaps, but seeing as you use 'socialism' to refer to a classless and stateless society, rather than some post-revolutionary 'transitional society' with a state, I don't see why you would use 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to mean a 'proletarian state' following revolution, or some inane notion of the political rule of the bourgeoisie in the absence of the bourgeoisie, rather than the political form "corresponding to" the "revolutionary process of transformation" from capitalism to communism. Which is to say, the proletarian revolution, being the expropriation of the expropriators, necessarily means the subjugation of the interests of the capitalist class, thus meaning the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', or "political rule of the producer," as this expropriation will have to involve "forcible means" (ie. enforcement). Though yes, "With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared." So, in short, post-revolution there will be no state, as there will be no class rule, but the proletarian revolution necessarily involves the class rule of the proletariat.

Also perhaps of note here is that Marx was perfectly aware that the state could function as a capitalist producer and produce commodities, saying in his notes on Adolph Wagner, "Where the state is itself a capitalist producer, as in the exploitation of mines, forests, etc., its product is a “commodity” and hence possesses the specific character of every other commodity."

[robbo203]

Perhaps, but seeing as you use 'socialism' to refer to a classless and stateless society, rather than some post-revolutionary 'transitional society' with a state, I don't see why you would use 'dictatorship of the proletariat' to mean a 'proletarian state' following revolution, or some inane notion of the political rule of the bourgeoisie in the absence of the bourgeoisie, rather than the political form "corresponding to" the "revolutionary process of transformation" from capitalism to communism. Which is to say, the proletarian revolution, being the expropriation of the expropriators, necessarily means the subjugation of the interests of the capitalist class, thus meaning the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', or "political rule of the producer," as this expropriation will have to involve "forcible means" (ie. enforcement). Though yes, "With its complete victory its own rule thus also ends, as its class character has disappeared." So, in short, post-revolution there will be no state, as there will be no class rule, but the proletarian revolution necessarily involves the class rule of the proletariat.

Also perhaps of note here is that Marx was perfectly aware that the state could function as a capitalist producer and produce commodities, saying in his notes on Adolph Wagner, "Where the state is itself a capitalist producer, as in the exploitation of mines, forests, etc., its product is a “commodity” and hence possesses the specific character of every other commodity."


I think this whole idea of the "dictatorship of the proletariat" is a can of worms. If it simply means the proletariat capturing the political power of the state and formally making itself the ruling class then it is innocuous enough - if that then means the effective abolition of all classes. The proletariat in other words becomes the ruling class in formal terms and as ruling class it effectively abolishes itself as a class and hence every other class. I can go along with that interpretation. What I cannot go along with is the idea is that the proletarian dictatorship is some kind of prolonged period. Still less can I go along with the leninist idea that it is a distinct transitional society between capitalism and communism. Nowhere did Marx and Engels ever claim that it was a particular kind of society. They merely referred to it as being a political period. And of course by dictatorship they meant something totally different to the vanguardist dictatorship over the proletariat exercised by the so called communist party in the soviet union.

However, I think the whole idea of a proletarian dictatorship and more specifically a "proletarian state" is utterly and completely flawed. It just doesnt make any sense at all - in Marxian terms, I might add. It is a weakness in Marx and Engels which the leninists have moved in to capitalise on big time to justify their anti-working class state. The notion that the workers can be in control of the state and yet continue to allow themselves to be exploited, to exist as the exploited class - which is what is meant by working class (wage labour presupposes capital and vice versa) - is so absurd and illogical.

There can only be one outcome and it is what Trotsky called "substitutionism". The proletarian state is a state in which a ruling elite rules in the name of the proletariat and even calls itself "proletarian", but has effectively become the exploiting class playing a role functionally equivalent to the the capitalist class.

[ZeroNowhere]

However, I think the whole idea of a proletarian dictatorship and more specifically a "proletarian state" is utterly and completely flawed. It just doesnt make any sense at all - in Marxian terms, I might add. It is a weakness in Marx and Engels which the leninists have moved in to capitalise on big time to justify their anti-working class state. The notion that the workers can be in control of the state and yet continue to allow themselves to be exploited, to exist as the exploited class - which is what is meant by working class (wage labour presupposes capital and vice versa) - is so absurd and illogical.I believe I had already referred to the 'bourgeois state minus the bourgeoisie' thing, which, IMO, shows that even if Marx hadn't said anything about the state or the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' (a phrase he mainly used to differentiate from Blanquist 'educational dictatorship'), it wouldn't really have done much.
Anyways, the working class wielding state power describes them ending wage-labour, as "the political rule of the producer cannot co-exist with the perpetuation of his social slavery." After all, capitalism won't be abolished by waving a wand (and I am not accusing anybody of holding this viewpoint or anything similar), but by a revolution carried out by the working class which shall abolish the working class (which is why it amuses me when commies use 'anti-working class' as an insult), rather than the working class ceasing to be such during the revolution. Well, if it is abolished rather than lasting a few billion years until we all die, which is also a possibility. But then again, we might not die in a few billion years, seeing as by then we may figure out a way to survive. In which case it could pretty much carry on for a really long time. Anyways.

[Ol' Dirty]

International socialism is not a matter of ignoring national differences. It calls for workers of each country to show solidarity towards workers of other nations without necessarily calling for the abolition of the nation-state itself

The italicized bit is a reason why I take issue with the term international socialism. The idea of economic socialization and social freedom crossing boundaries does not really get to the heart of the issue: our –or at least my- end is to evaporate borders, creating a transnational working-class identity, and, eventually, creating a world without economic classes, without hunger, thirst, homelessness sickness and ignorance.

Transnational socialism (or whatever the name may be) would eliminate the need for nation-states. After an identity as "working-class" evaporates, an identity as a human being, a resident of the Earth, realizes itself. Rather than going through walls, we just transcend them, much as commerce transcends nationality in the era of global capitalism.

Historically, movements for international socialism have fought good fights on many fields -the Spanish Civil War being a prime example-. Still, "globalization" is what the name implies... and more. Globalized capitalism sees the coffers of transnational firms well exceeding the funds of national entities. “World capitalism is dominated by multinational companies who neither obey laws imposed by national governments nor the supposed ‘free’ market mechanisms so cherished by today’s monetarists. Of the largest economic powers in the world, 57 are countries –but 43 are multinational companies!”* In global capitalism, the upper-classes of India, China, the United States and European Union can converse in its lingua franca –English- on mergers and acquisitions in five five-star hotels. Just as the global bourgeoisie unites itself, so must the global proletariat.


Whereas when Marx was writing the nation-state was not even the dominant form of international organization. During his lifetime the vast majority of Europe's population lived in transnational empires; of which the Ottomans and Austro-Hungary are probably the best examples.

The Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires were far from "transnational." An empire, be it Spanish, Malinese or "American" (another misnomer), is just a state that encompasses more than one ethnic group, with one group having privilege over the others. Rome, at its largest, covered Iberia, the whole of the Meditteranean (Mare Nostrum, Our Sea), Asia Minor, France, the Low Countries, parts of Germany, a good part of territorial Southwest Asia, and other innumerable territories. Still, to call the Roman Empire “transnational” is an exercise in futility, the same being true with the Ottoman or Austro-Hungarian empires. The Turkish ethnic group was the dominating people in the Ottoman Empire, much as Austrians were in theirs. Perhaps the term “multinational” might be more descriptive?


The case that national borders have become less important than they were in Marx's day seems fairly baseless. The barriers constructed during the past century are certainly coming down but then these were never present, to any degree at least, when Marx was writing.

I totally disagree. The Zollverein Customs Union was created in 1818, the same year Marx was born, and the Zollverein was integral to the unification of Germany as a nation-state. While England, France and even the Netherlands adopted a sense of national unity, Germany would not see unification until 1871. Marx lived a time where the nation-state was being born and planting itself firmly in the ground. We’re seeing the aftermath: the World Bank and IMF work to reduce barriers to trade in every marketplace; more and more, an Indonesian soybean magnate can compete with a Brazilian agribusiness CEO.

The proletariat must do the same sort of thing: demand increased material and social rights, confront the bourgeoisie in every necessary arena, demand fair trade, and support workers’ democracy and solidarity. “Workers of the World, unite!” was not just a footnote… it was integral to the idea of scientific socialism. And to truly unite, workers must cross boundaries entirely, demanding global standards.

*Capitalism For Beginners, by Robert Lekachman & Borin Van Loon, p. 53, published 1981. Though it is more than a decade old, this figure still resonates today; it may be true that more multinationals have become major economic powers, or some other change. This book is perhaps one of the best explanations of capitalism that I have found, and is definitely a recommended read.

[DancingLarry]

Transnational socialism (or whatever the name may be) would eliminate the need for nation-states. After an identity as "working-class" evaporates, an identity as a human being, a resident of the Earth, realizes itself.

As the song says, while tying this all back together to the starting point:

"And in the end the Internationale becomes the human race."

[Stranger Than Paradise]

IAfter all, capitalism won't be abolished by waving a wand (and I am not accusing anybody of holding this viewpoint or anything similar), but by a revolution carried out by the working class which shall abolish the working class (which is why it amuses me when commies use 'anti-working class' as an insult), rather than the working class ceasing to be such during the revolution.

Please can you explain the part I have highlighted.