We, the Marxists, have always opposed bourgeois nationalism. We have defended international solidarity against national selfishness and have defended the struggle against the common enemy and the fraternity of people against the seeds of enmity sown by the bourgeoisie amongst the peoples.
Imperialism has transformed nationalism into an ideological weapon for the achievement of the enslavement of the peoples by more powerful states, for the plunder and division of the world. Thus did this continued from the past and came to now. A look at the patriotic preachers of the 1st and 2nd World Wars, which has caused a horrifying brutality amongst the people for the defense of the interests of their own bourgeoisie, is sufficient for an understanding of this.
"… if a French person, during the time of (the former French president) Clemenceau, as a socialist, says, it is my right and duty to protect my country if the enemy occupies it, he/she would be [considered as] thinking like a petty-bourgeois nationalist rather than an internationalist and revolutionary proletarian. Because, this mode of thinking, does not contain the revolutionary struggle of the working class against the capital (…) in other words, internationalism is replaced by a miserable and a hackneyed nationalism".
In today's life, we do the same almost everyday and hear everyday these speeches of patriotism in the name of a so-called democracy. The bourgeoisie which has utilized the events of September the 11th, is using this nationalism as far as it drags on the people behind their governments. Patriotism, now, became the business of Bush, the butcher, who recognizes no limits and whose crimes in the struggle against 'terrorism', in other words, in fact in the struggle which has the aims of forcing the peoples into submission and capturing the riches (oil, gas, etc) the peoples have (Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, …) are known by all. And on the skirts of Bush, we observe Blair and his other colleagues including "protesters" like Schröder and Chirac, idiots like Aznar and mafia puppets like Berlusconi.
Various sections of the masses of people in some countries more powerfully than others and usually spontaneously, albeit anarchistically, responded to these attacks. The Marxist party and organisations are expressing to people that it is the very existence of them that is under threat and are trying to develop this movement. Proletarian internationalism is playing a role of vital significance. Us the communists, in this not at all heart-warming period in which we are living in, should develop proletarian internationalism and should work for the understanding and application of it by our peoples. We could say that this is a matter of life and death.
In order for us to influence the struggle of the masses of people, (as long as capitalism exists) in order for us to defeat hallow pacifist and democratic hopes, the idea of proletarian internationalism, with the entirety of its greatness is of vital significance. Because: "Those who promise a 'democratic' peace to people without conducting propaganda for socialist revolution (…) are deceiving the people".
The complexity of our struggle may deem it not possible for us to see the entirety of its features and aspects. The concrete tactics which we need to apply to each concrete circumstance are complex. It should not also be forgotten that a tactic may remain for years or may change in a matter of a few days or even a few hours. In the ten days that shook the world, Lenin was forced to change his plans within hours. Changes of this kind are of course not easy, however if we do not achieve this and arrive in a situation in which we cannot see the forest from the tree, the reverse of what we expect might take place.
We either have a policy of alliances or should have one. The alliances are inevitably made with those who have ideological or political differences with us. If these differences did not exist, there would be no need to form alliances anyway and we would be in the same party. We might be even forced to form alliances with forces which might potentially nurse hostility towards us. Nevertheless, if the conditions necessities these alliances, they are positive as long as we do not hallow out our principles and we do not abandon or forget them.
"…conciliations with a fighting party are usually necessitated by conditions and it is absurd to dismiss these conciliations systematically. (…) The task of a party that is genuinely revolutionary is not to declare what is impossible and dismiss all kinds of conciliation. However, if/when it makes a conciliation as a consequence of the conditions, it is to display the ability to remain devoted to its principles, its class and its revolutionary tasks…"
The communists and their parties fought side by side along with bourgeois forces including also the reactionaries in the struggle waged against the nazi fascism. This is because, the real enemy at that moment was not the French, Belgian, Italian etc bourgeoisie but the layer and sections of the bourgeoisie and its oligarchy which was working to install nazi fascism in Germany, Italy and Japan. The contradiction in between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie in these countries in this period, as it was the case during the struggle given against the Francists in Spain, became into a secondary contradiction.
This attitude does not imply the abandoning or a reiteration of ideological principles amongst which there also is the proletarian internationalism, but is rather an application of a concrete tactic for a concrete situation. What was valid for the situation that has emerged at this moment was necessary for the establishment of the international common front. That the Spanish, French, Italian etc parties could not have positioned accurately the fundamental contradiction in between the proleteriat and bourgeoisie in their struggles is yet another problem (On the other hand, this could be one of the reasons of opportunism and revisionism resulting with the disintegration of numerous communist parties).
Proletarian internationalism should take place in all activities of the communist organisations with the purpose of enabling the unity in between the peoples through the vanguard forces as well as the unity in between the parties. This is necessary for the establishment of fraternal, harmonious, and hence efficient and easy relationships in between the parties.
"It has to unite the workers of all nations willing to serve the proletariat and has to conduct a successful struggle against bourgeois nationalism including also the one against its own bourgeoisie".
All these certainly do not prevent the emergence of distinctions and contradictions in views and analysis in between the communists. To claim the contrary is a plain idealism, it is to deny the law of unequal development valid amongst communist party and organisations.
Contradiction and polemics were present within the international communist movement since the past. Since the period of Marx's life, the confusion created in minds by opportunism and revisionism which was able to conceal itself over an unanimity with a complete unity, from the genuine discussions in between the comrades to the period of submission to "paternal party", the clash of ideas, concepts and analysis were always present.
On the other hand, the Markxist-Leninists appearing in the sixties, raised their voice against the idea of "paternal party" in order to defend values like proletarian internationalism insulted by administrative cliques like that of Santiago Carillo in Spain which has submitted to Khrushchev and his gang.
The question of proletarian internationalism exposed itself from time to time firstly in the struggle waged against the Maoists and then in the struggle, which we carried out earlier amongst ourselves and then before the people, against the opportunist and bureaucrats who has captured power in the PTA (the discussion we undertook against the opportunists and bureaucrats did not take place overtly, because not all of us felt on the same scale the graveness of the revisionism which have decayed the PTA, and when we comprehended it, it was too late).
However, this was a very shallow internationalism, and in actuality, it was a principle, which was accepted only verbally.
Lenin said:
"Real internationalism comprises of working devotedly for the development of the revolutionary movement in one's own country and the development of the revolutionary movement in general (with means of sympathy, propaganda, material support) and supporting this line, this struggle in every country without absolutely no exceptions. (…)"
"…proleterian internationalism deems it necessary
1- for the interests of the proletarian movement in any country to be subjected to the interests of the struggle of the proletariat in world scale
2- for a nation achieving a victory against its own bourgeoisie, to be capable and prepared for making great self-sacrifices with the aim of defeating the international capital".
There is no contradiction in what Lenin said. As an ideological principle, proletarian internationalism has two aspects, the first being tactic and the second, strategic. These are not immutable principles but, depending on the concrete conditions of a certain moment, it is necessary to apply one and strengthen it.
Nevertheless, this principle is not always conceived in this way and polemics and differences of thinking are emerging over this issue. For example, lets consider the question how are to conceive proletarian internationalism amongst communist party and organisations which are claiming to be based upon the same principles? One of the issues which is not understood (or not willing to be understood) is that the criticism in between fraternal party and organisations should not only be considered as a positive attitude but as a necessity. A party's assessment of another party that has differences of ideas or analysis concerning a particular issue is being opposed in the name of "not intervening into the internal affairs of another party" which we assume to be well intended.
To repeat, proletarian internationalism, does not forbid criticism in between the parties when the occasion arise, but completely on the contrary presupposes it. If we call ourselves internationalists, in accordance with the requirements of this, the internal affairs of other parties should concern us. The revolution, the peoples struggle that takes place all around the world, concerns not only the party of the country where this struggles takes place but should concern all of us as it is a part of the strategy of world revolution. Although it is the party of that country which is essentially responsible for the achievement of the revolutionary struggle in that country, the revolution is to the interest of all of us.
What kind of an attitude should our parties assume if one of fraternal parties of any country commits a mistake or confuses the essential aims with the secondary ones? Should we remain silent or should we criticise? What should we do when our militants, sympathisers and friends expect an explanation for the erroneous tactic of this party? Should we leave their questions unanswered? Should we sponsor an erroneous tactic? Or should we overtly express what we think? The answers we give to such questions should be clear and distinct, and should leave no room for doubt. We should not conceal our views not only from our militants but also in general from the people and we should not deceive them with any excuse. If especially our attitude concerning this issue is going to cause repercussions in the country, not expressing our attitude clearly as well as weakening our credibility, it will also break our influence.
These types of situations do exist and will continue to exist. The struggle of the parties just as the life itself is full of "sharp turnings" was saying Lenin. And we, the communists, should verify our friends and foes and in order to know to apply our tactic in the changing conditions we should be adequately vigilant and should have the flexibility to form alliances or conciliations without panicking on the face of concrete conditions or a change occurring in a particular phase of our struggle.
Because, as Lenin puts it in "What is to be done?"
"Without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement. (…) what at first sight appears to be an "unimportant" error may lead to most deplorable consequences, and only short-sighted people can consider factional disputes and a strict differentiation between shades of opinion inopportune or superfluous."
The error in determining my foes is a crude error with grave consequences. The consequences of confusing the main enemy with the secondary will be grave. Proletarian internationalism, for communist organisations, is not a principle which is to be remembered now and then, but rather is a fundamental principle which we should work to apply in accordance with our strength.
Madrid - January 2003
R. Marco
Communist Organisation October of Spain