I meant the worker's struggle is not something that takes place in a few specific countries and is not a product of the state of affairs of those few countries but something more universal. Communists fight for the betterment of the working class throughout the world and not only for the betterment of the working class in a specific country. Marx said proletarians of all countries unite. He didn't say proletarians of Russia unite. How does Marx saying that we can't take the a country from the workers they never had just mean that they have something in common? So now you decide what Marx means in his writings? You say that we shouldn't care for national identities then you contradict yourself by saying we shouldn't forget our countries. Then you say that just because 'national belongings' shouldn't be a bone of contention, it doesn't mean that the workers don't have a country. What does then? National belongings in itself is a bourgeois term for it implies right of ownership of one group of people over another. You sound like a petite-bourgeois who tries to twist Marxist philosophy so that it would satisfy your own personal national beliefs. You are right when you say they should fight in their own country primarily because they know it better. It is obviously the more practical thing to do and more feasible in attaining victory. What I said is that they shouldn't do it for patriotic or nationalistic reasons. Read my sentences to the last word before criticizing please. Fighting in your own country is also not always possible. When the revolution takes place in another country we should give it our full support just as if it were our own. Class struggle is not an isolated event that takes place within one country or another. It is an international struggle and capitalists will fight it wherever it arises and not only within their own countries. A country is not the base frame of class struggle as you were saying earlier. It's history and state of affairs is the base frame for the proletarian revolution
within that specific area. It is the starting point for the international revolution, a base through which the revolution will spread lest it be crushed by the capitalists. Socialist society will never succeed within one country for long and as long as other imperialist superpowers exist and the collapse of the Soviet Union is proof of that. Countries don't exists in a void. Fighting for the proletarian revolution only within individual countries will ultimately lead to its eventual failure. Che Guevara fought for the revolution wherever there was injustice and not in his homeland of Argentina. We seem to have a different idea on what a country is. I already stated my definition. Why didn't you critique it? You say that a country is culture. Culture to me is a product of a specific people in relation to their geography/region to which they have made their homes and have become accustomed to over the centuries. A country to me however is a product of the ruling powers to control specific land so that other ruling bourgeois powers wouldn't. Countries are the product of the bourgeoisie competing for territory thus the political borders they created to say that this is yours and this is mine. Countries themselves exist within a wider capitalist framework for weaker countries are exploited by stronger hence class struggle on a wider scale. You say that a county is our most direct reality. Well in the sense that its history and political situation should be used as a backround to direct the proletariat in the right direction to revolution, then I concur. In essence the very concept of a country is a bourgeois one and Marxists have been saying that forever yet you think differently. Read more Marx. Stalin fought the notion of nationalism fiercely. In truth I believe that a country is an illusion. It only exists as long as the bourgeoisie say it does. Palestinians had a country before 1948. Now they are scattered and many of them have never even been to that specific land they call Palestine because other bourgeois imperialists won't allow it. Israelis now claim that it is their country. Yet the Palestinian people and culture lives on wherever they may be scattered across the globe. Countries have been created, conquered, and destroyed. Mighty empires have risen and fallen. Entire civilizations have appeared and disappeared along with their people, language, values, beliefs and culture but the class struggle has existed since the very first civilizations and their governments were formed. Therefore countries cannot be the base frame for class struggle because countries come and go. Capitalist society as a whole on the other hand has almost always existed and it
is the base frame for the class struggle. In regards to my "ridiculous" statement I agree that I could have stated what I meant better. My mistake. I hope now you'll understand more of where I'm coming from. I didn't fully understand your last comment. How are not all countries not controlled by the state? Give examples of such countries. Maybe I don't fully understand what state means but I understand it as a governed entity, governed by people, and in most cases the ruling class.
Even if it was true, it would mean that a revolution would destroy the country. Of course, a revolution can't destroy a country because this isn't a matter of classes.
Well I sure would hope the revolution destroys the country as an entity that draws political lines stating that this land belongs to this or that people. The earth does and should not belong to a specific people divided up into countries. Its resources should be used by man as a whole, and for the betterment of the proletariat.