Borders, countries = property relations?

[Zingu]

I came to my mind to an other thread about "Has there been Socialist/Communist countries?" about quite a interesting thought.

In my opinion, there is no such thing as a "Socialist country", as we all know, nationalism, patriotism are enemies of the working class. Why not borders too? The fight for International Socialism, is exactly that; international. Creating a Socialist country is only an other way of respecting property rights; "ours" and "theirs". A revolutionary working class has no respect for any type or level of capitalist property establishment, and that doesn't only include the means of production.

Looking at the Spanish Anarchist Communes and the Paris Commune...I would say if these two systems had matured, given that they retained their features...no "country" would have formed, if the working class uprisings in Mairselles and Lyon had succeded and established communes.....the only form of unity would and is working class unity, NOT national unity!

The initial and long term aims of proletarian revolution is the abolishment of property relations, class, and borders, and creating new ones of any of those is a betrayal and a contradiction to the revolution!

So, I would imagine the immediate society established on the dawn of revolution would exactly mirror the future communist society, expection to class relations and the means of production.

So, is a country and/or borders a required part of a "state"? If it is, then a state is counter-revolutionary by nature. I'm still thinking this through, but the main question that will decide it for me is if that higher plane of property relations; borders, is required for a state. If so, call me an anarchist.

[Soheran]

If limited social ownership - for instance, the ownership of a given factory by the workers of that factory, and not by anyone else - can be said to be "socialist," then theoretically there is no contradiction between borders and socialism. The proletariat of one nation owns what is in that nation, that is, the totality of what they have produced, and the proletariat of another nation owns what it is in that nation, what they have produced.

It is only anarchism which necessarily rejects the notion of "property" in its entirety, instead of merely rejecting capitalist notions of private property that lead to the authoritarian control of an individual over a social institution - of a capitalist over a factory, for instance.

That said, the arbitrariness of national borders, and their use by the capitalist class to divide the working class against itself, is reactionary, as is the current incarnation of the state as an enforcer of capitalist notions of property and thus of the subjugation of the proletariat. These, however, are traits incidental to the capitalist state, and ones that may not carry over to the "dictatorship of the proletariat."

[Kamerat Voldstad]

Nationality is inconsistent with Communism because it implies a we, in this cultural and geographical unit, and a they of another such unit, while real Communism sees the world in international terms.

Borders, however, are not contradictory to Communism.
Let's think the (for now) impossible: Revolution breaks out in Norway. All around it, there are Capitalist states. The socialist government of Norway does not stretch beyond where Sweden or Britain begins; Socialism ends where Capitalism begins. So the border, whether we like it or not, is there, and it must be kept, Norway must stand by its borders and defend its borders, because absolving borders would be absolving the people's atuhority in the region (Norway) they occupy.

However, this is in the Socialism phase. If the whole world was Communist, there would gradually be no need of borders, and the state would fade away. But as long as there are non-communist units in the world, borders and the state is necessary to keep apart from these, to stand united against these.

But it depends what you mean with 'borders'. So far, I have talked about borders as something that divides us, separates us, creates a we and they; something necessary when there is principal dispute.

But in another sense, borders are an essential part of Socialism (though they might be obsolete in the last stage of Communism).
To hinder oppression and authority over the people, and to make the socialization go easier, the transitional period (Socialism) should reduce society into lesser, independent units that stand equally in a central government, whose only task is to regulate between these units.

[1984]

Remember that the modern concept of "nation" is an entirely bourgeois one. I cannot remember the details (it's been 4 years since I've had my last lessons on this) but let's go back to the the end of the middle-ages. What could possibly be more favorable to trade (and the "new" bourgeois class) than an united territory with its unique language and currency? The creation of national states was completely supported (and financed) by the bourgeoisie, and led to the end of the feudal system, the rise of absolutism, and the consolidation of the bourgeoisie as an uprising class.

A country and/or borders are not required as part of a "state" - feudalism is an example.