>Which question? The essence of proletarian internationalism. That one. Fine, you meant it as a joke, but I'm still curious as to what you think the essence of proletarian internationalism is. You must have some opinion, eh? And, no, I'm not bugging you as a penance; I really am curious. If you'd rather not say, fine.
>
Dear Todd: My apologies - I really did not quite understand that you
were serious, instead of merely baiting me. However, now I see this is
possible! Since this is naturally a very large question, I doubt that
even with a serious intent that you expect a complete, & full answer.
However I will not deny that I do have an opinion - Don't we all
gathered here today, form an opinionated sub-group of the population eh?
(Are you a Canuck?). So.....
This is rather off the cuff, & thus I do not resort to definitions of
the CI etc etc [At least not immediately! I did later, "look" it up in a
rudimentary way, as you will see. But then a doctor will often - should
often! - check her/his diagnosis against the books eh?]. Perhaps you
will accept the following then, as at least my own heart-felt sincere
comments. For me, any such definition must firstly, encompass two
differing perspectives:
Namely:
(i) The perspective of a person in country that is classifiable as a
dominant imperialist type nation;
(ii) The perspective of a person in country that is classifiable as a
subject or oppressed nation, whether colonised or semi-colonised, or
neo-colonial type nation;
From the point of view of (i) I submit that the feature would be epitomized by something like: "A willingness to deny "your" country" in favour of the "other" - country. This may boil down to standing up for the country being colonized by "your" imperial country in question, or what you will readily understand by the phrase of "revolutionary defeatism"; i.e. times of war, turn the guns on your own bourgeoisie.. [I being a fine up-standing non-hunting Canuck refuse to have a gun, naturally [<wink>] [Please NOTICE the wink, as I am told by an experienced hand here, that I must learn e-Mail signalling to enable those that cannot see my non-verbal actions/reactions as to entry into JOKE mode] - but this may be in the form of the pen or keyboard etc.
From the point of view of (ii) I submit that the feature would be epitomized by something like: "A willingness to deny in your battle with the imperial forces that the enemy is the entire peoples of the state that your fighting against. Hence - even though you fight the corporeal, real people from the imperial oppressing country-state - you recognise that one of your allies is the organised working-class and progressive forces inside the home base of that country. Note that in (ii) the perspective might change. Thus - in relation to the Western dominanat imperilaist nations, India was a subject nation that in my view, still had to undergo all necesssary components of the National Demcratic revolution. However, in relation to countries like Sri Lnaka - the combined multi-national Central State of India - let us call it 'India' - was acting as a 'minor' but oppressing and imperial nation. Both for (i) & (ii) - the key feature is the solidarity of the working class and toilers &/or peasants of all countries against "their own", and/or the international bourgeoisie - as opposed to the mythical solidarity of ONE nation. [Naturally you might expect me to qualify the latter statement in wars of national liberation, where it is essential to find the unity of the widest sector of the population to form a united front]. I am not sure if this adequately addresses for you, my views?
In the formulation of the CI - which after having put my own inchoate views down first, I have looked up - it is was follows, at the Founding of the Third International: "The international which subordinates so-called national interests to the interests of the international revolution, will embody the mutual aid of the proletariat of different countries, for without economic & other mutual aid the proletariat will not be in a position to organise the new society"; Platform of the CI adopted by the First Congress 4 March 1919; in "The CI 1919-1943"; Volume 1 Ed Jane Degras; London; 1971; p.23." I cannot disagree with this formulation.
How to operationalise that in the era of globalisation? [Should I say the current era of globalisation - to de-uniquify the current ear?] - Iis a point that I submit, bears a lot of discussion. Hari.
>
>