Do the workers have a country?

The Communist Manifesto famously said that "the working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got".

Do you agree with this?

I do agree with the quote in a way that i agree that communists should not stay "loyal" to their bourgeois country/motherland.

Clear no in the present context. The closest thing to a homeland we ever had was the USSR and even that failed to pan out.

Of course they do. Otherwise they would never have taken part in the national liberation movements.

Wasn't the purpose of national liberation to let those issues fade away, so the focus could remain on class struggle?

That was my understanding of Stalin in any event.

Of course, we don't care about national "identities". We recognize the right to self-determination because we want it to fade away. But national liberation is mostly aimed against imperialism. Moreover, the fact that national belongings should not be a bone of contention does not mean that workers have no country. Marx's sentence is a slogan, it means that we have something in common which goes beyond hatred and differences, and especially a common enemy. However, our country is our most direct reality, the base frame of class struggle. Therefore, he who forgets the country in which he lives, its culture and its history, and especially the history of the working class, is nothing more than a philistine.

No. The worker's struggle has been the same throughout the world and history and is not specific to a particular country. Communists should fight for the proletarian struggle wherever they can and not primarily in their native countries for patriotic or nationalistic reasons. Different cultures and histories is a product of different peoples and diversity throughout history and not a product of different countries. A country is merely a region legally identified as a distinct entity in political geography. A country is a product of bourgeois society as it is controlled by the state. A communist should not be loyal to any one country unless it represents a workers state and is committed to the international workers struggle. He may always retain his love for his native people's culture and history for the cultures of different peoples is mostly a beautiful thing to be proud of. Culture and country are however different things.

What a bunch of sophisms!

How could the workers's struggle be not specific to a country? You don't even speak my language. Communists must fight in their country primarily because nobody can understand the country as much as they do. This is just obvious.

The most ridiculous statement is this one: "Different cultures and histories is a product of different peoples and diversity"
Diversity is a product of diversity? Wow!

"and not a product of different countries." ?
What is a country, if it is not this "product of different peoples and diversity". A country doesn't produce culture, it is culture.

"A country is a product of bourgeois society as it is controlled by the state."
One more sophism. Not all countries are controlled by a state. 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.

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.

OP-Bagration wrote:

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.

I'll just say that Marx was completely right when he said that the content of our struggle is international, while its form is national. My main enemy is German imperialism. OP's main enemy is French imperialism. Loz's main enemy is EU imperialism which is currently colonizing his country.

That does not mean I feel any deeper connection to Germany, but I live here, and so I'll fight here.

Don't you mean to say that your main enemy is imperialism in general but you just happen to fight it in Germany because that is where you incidentally currently reside?

"The main enemy of every people is in their own country!"

Quote:

The main enemy of the German people is in Germany: German imperialism, the German war party, German secret diplomacy. This enemy at home must be fought by the German people in a political struggle, cooperating with the proletariat of other countries whose struggle is against their own imperialists.

[...]

Proletarians of all countries, follow the heroic example of your Italian brothers! Ally yourselves to the international class struggle against the conspiracies of secret diplomacy, against imperialism, against war, for peace with in the socialist spirit.

The main enemy is at home!

http://www.marxists.org/archive/liebkne ... y-home.htm

Quote:

Don't you mean to say that your main enemy is imperialism in general but you just happen to fight it in Germany because that is where you incidentally currently reside?

Incidentally? Political struggle is not as random as you seem to imagine it to be. I was born in Germany, I grew up here, I was politicized here, I have intimate knowledge of the political situation here and I'm part of a movement that tries to change the state of affairs. I have tasks and responsibilities in Germany. I'm not giving that up, even if I have to leave the country at some point. No, this has nothing to do with nationalism. I'm not even German.

I never thought of political struggle as something random. Neither did I ever suggest proletarians give up the struggle in their home countries. I said not to do it for nationalistic reasons and not without the intent of it spreading elsewhere as an isolated event from the international struggle. I thought of class struggle as something more international than local. Your words now make me think of it in a different way. I now understand more on how it should take place on both levels simultaneously. The practical reason of fighting in your own country because you know it better is obvious as I have stated earlier. I do have a question though. If the revolution fails in your own country like for instance when fascism took over, would you relocate your struggle to another place where the revolution has a better chance of succeeding? Or would you hold on to Germany regardless?

I think it should be looked at more as though your national bourgeoisie are your revolutionary task to dispose of. That is we share some of the blame of our bosses if only because we allowed them to rule at all. But I think there can be a hidden nationalism in this. Wanting socialism more for your nation than any other. But that's more like a personality flaw than a error in judgement.

However the idea of workers having a country is still ludicrous. Rather it is the people themselves we are connected to. The lines on the map are just fences even though it is important to remember where the fences lie.

I see what you mean. I've been thinking about the question of revolutions within countries from a more practical point of view. The United States of America is currently the master of international imperialism and capitalism. It has, does, and will fight to suppress the communist revolution all over the world with all the resources at its disposal and has succeeded many a time. Even when revolutions do succeed in overthrowing their capitalist masters, the next step in building an effective socialist state becomes near to impossible due to the sanctions, political and economic isolation that is brought down upon it by international imperialism led by the USA. Some would argue that allying to other superpowers such as Russia and China would help sustain the buildup of that revolutionary nation as well as counter the pressure America and its allies force upon them. But then again, Russia and China only support progressive and revolutionary countries because it serves the interests of their own bourgeoisie and not for ideological reasons. In the end it would be about choosing a lesser evil over another. The revolution will fail for as long as there are imperialist superpowers to combat it. Look at the unimaginable hardships the Bolsheviks had to go through before they were able to create a Soviet Union. The might of the entire imperialist world was aimed against them from beginning to end. Even after the revolution overthrew the old order it took a country as huge and as rich in natural and human resources and the will and resolution of a man as Stalin to build up a world superpower as fast as possible and at all costs because he knew had he not done that the imperialist nations would have crushed them out of existence. He needed to build as mighty a Union as that of the Soviet Union because that's what it takes to sustain an international workers revolution. Thus the primary goal of communism must be the international revolution while revolutions within countries must be used as a front and as a base of operations to sustain and further the communist cause. That's why the revolution must take place in bigger countries such as Russia and America because it has the resources to sustain it. Change America and you will change the world for it is the heart of international imperialism. Revolutions within our own countries won't change anything but the state of affairs within them and never to the full potential of socialist society.

Quote:

[A]s mighty a Union as that of the Soviet Union [is] what it takes to sustain an international workers revolution.

Explain your reasoning.

Quote:

I do have a question though. If the revolution fails in your own country like for instance when fascism took over, would you relocate your struggle to another place where the revolution has a better chance of succeeding? Or would you hold on to Germany regardless?

Good question. I don't have an answer. I think it depends on a lot of personal issues, i.e. whether the cops are after me or not, whether I love a German woman (and whether she wants to come with me) or whatever stuff I deem personally important at this moment. I might join FARC for the cocaine, who knows? But a relocation would never be "incidental".

I'd feel even more obliged to stay at home if fascists took it over. Fascists at the helm of America is a little too dangerous. Liberals at least want to keep squeezing the world rather than run it directly into the dirt.

EDIT:
And by fascism in this case I mean America's (ie libertarianism).

But you hate liberals more.

Dagoth Ur wrote:

But I think there can be a hidden nationalism in this. Wanting socialism more for your nation than any other. But that's more like a personality flaw than a error in judgement.

Yeah you're probably right. I go around labeling people as nationalist thus not truly communist but the fact of the matter is that it's always been easier for me to renounce nationalism and the concept of countries completely due to personal reasons. I have never lived in one country for too long. I have multiple passports and whichever country I lived in at a particular time I was always labeled a foreigner. I speak different languages none with their native country's accent. I never had a personal attachment to one particular country because I was not raised that way. Maybe if I was my views would be different.

Mabool wrote:

Explain your reasoning.

It takes a large amount of resources to support an international struggle. A superpower like the Soviet Union is powerful enough to guarantee its existence in the face of imperialist superpowers as well as lend a hand to any nation in struggle against their own imperialists. That's basically what I meant.