November 26, 2013 at 6:03 pm #82497
Sorry, sorry to ask so many questions.
Is the following about right
" I do not know if it is
altogether accidental that it was the year 1866 that the First International, the first
international working men’s association, held its first conference, and that it was after
and not before that date that the word “internationalism” first appeared in print in the
That the concept began about then? When did greater acceptance of internationalism spread? ThanksNovember 26, 2013 at 6:38 pm #98515
International means between nations. Nations aren't constructs that are useful.November 27, 2013 at 3:22 am #98516
The concept of internationalism was first indicated on the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels on 1884 by indicating that workers have not country, and Proletariat of the World Unite. Nationalism and patriotism are not compatibles with socialism. We can not have what we do not own, the real patriotic and nationalist is the capitalist class, they are the ones who own everything, therefore, we do not have any country, what we can have is a new world without countries, without nationality, without national frontiers, and national divisions, and without warsMarx and Engels did not say Oppressed of all the nations unite, and they did not say Proletariat of the World march behind your own rulers. or Proletariat of the world kill each others in patriotic wars. All those false slogans including the red flag were created by the Leninist, the Stalinists and the MaoistWe do not support any type of government ( left or right, both terms are not relevant, and they are not different either ) and we do not support leaders, we do not support the so called motherland, or any so called patriotic war, and we do not support any national liberation movement, or war of national liberation Internationalism means that all the workers of the world have the same interests, the same objective, and the same goal. What is our immediate and future objective ? To establish a new society totally different to capitalism :November 27, 2013 at 4:44 am #98517
btw, I didn't need definitions of internationalism. That was not my question.November 27, 2013 at 5:04 am #98518admice wrote:btw, I didn't need definitions of internationalism. That was not my question.
One things is your dictionary definition of socialism and another thing is the socialist definition of internationalism. Your question has nothing to do with socialismNovember 27, 2013 at 5:43 am #98519
ALBMemberjondwhite wrote:International means between nations. Nations aren't constructs that are useful.
Good point and why we don't really like the word. We use it but recognise its inadequacy from a theoretical point of view. That's why we list as one of our contributions to socialist theory at the end of our pamphlet Questions of the Day:Quote:Realisation of the world-wide (rather than internaticna)l character of Socialism. Socialism can only be a united world community without frontiers and not the federation of countries suggested by the word 'international'.
i.e we prefer to see and describe ourselves as "world socialists" rather than "international socialists".Raymond Williams (see thread on EP Thompson in the events section) unintentionally re-inforces this position in his discussion of the word "Nationalist" in his book Keywords:Quote:The compexity has been increased by the usually separable distinction between nationalism (selfish pursuit of a nation's interest as against others) and internationalism (co-operation between nations). But internationalism, which refers to relations between nation-states, is not the opposite of nationalism in the context of a subordinate political group seeking its own distinct identity; it is only the opposite of selfish and competitive policies between existing political nations.[His bold]
I don't think he's right to see "internationalism" as referring just to relations between "nation-states". It also refers (as in this discussion) to co-operation between subjects of different "nation-states". In any event, it assumes and accepts the concepts of "nations" and/or "nation-states".Incidentally, the last part of this passage might explain why he felt that there was no incompatibility between being an "internationalist" and being a "Welsh nationalist" as he seems to have been at least for a while. Perhaps there isn't. But there is between being a "world socialist" and being a Welsh (or English or Scottish or any other) nationalist.November 27, 2013 at 6:15 am #98520
The first International was composed of different peoples with different tendencies including anarchists, blanquist and it did not cover all the countries of the whole world.Marx had a worldy vision about socialism and that concept did not start with the First International, it started with the Communist Manifesto. The thing is that as socialist we do not follow our definition according to dictionaries, most dictionary also reflect the interest of the ruling classNovember 27, 2013 at 7:07 pm #98522
AH, I see the distinction now. Thanks ALB. You're so patient, good teacher. Important distinction. " not the federation of countries suggested by the word 'international" Yes, I think there should not be nations or countries other than as a geographical organizational thing (decided that before I was 17). Global or world wide is better.I got the history info elsewhere . Thanks.The following is snarky, but I'm kinda irritated."Your question has nothing to do with socialism"Except I bothered to ask Socialists."The concept of internationalism was first indicated on the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels on 1884 "I know Marx is impoortant to you, but he is not my god.November 27, 2013 at 9:16 pm #98521
A little off topicadmice wrote:I know Marx is impoortant to you, but he is not my god.
I know we can sometimes appear to treat Marx with reverence but If you can imagine millions of people dying of simple infections, while the world ignored Alexander Flemming's discovery of penicillin….. Karl Marx revealed and laid bare the workings of capitalism over 150 years ago but millions still live in poverty or are starving . We use Karl Marx's theory, so we have to mention him now and then: He is certainly no more of a God than Flemming, Einstein etc.November 29, 2013 at 2:01 am #98523admice wrote:AH, I see the distinction now. Thanks ALB. You're so patient, good teacher. Important distinction. " not the federation of countries suggested by the word 'international" Yes, I think there should not be nations or countries other than as a geographical organizational thing (decided that before I was 17). Global or world wide is better.I got the history info elsewhere . Thanks.The following is snarky, but I'm kinda irritated."Your question has nothing to do with socialism"Except I bothered to ask Socialists."The concept of internationalism was first indicated on the Communist Manifesto written by Marx and Engels on 1884 "I know Marx is impoortant to you, but he is not my god.
You are looking for an idiomatic expression, and I am looking for a political economical application. The First International served its purpose, that is the important aspect of that organization, and it was integrated by different tendencies, the rest is just pure intellectualismMarx is not my god either, and I do not have any gods in my mind either, but I have always preferred to read Marx than reading comics books, reading the Bible, romantic novels, and wasting my time with fantasies, playing with video games, or to render worshipping to false idols, presidents, or state ministersBy reading Marx we were able to understand the real concept of history, sociology, anthropology, and economics, and open our eyes, the doors and windows of our mind, to see a new world of ideas, and to understand that it was possible for makind to free themselves from the chains of capital, and that we did not have to leak the assess of the rich peoples, or admire themLike Vin wrote, Fleming discovered the Penicillin, and Marx discovered the social laws that govern this society, and how we can throw in the trash all our childish, religious, and bourgeois conceptionsBy reading Marx, it was the first time in my life that I was able to read the concept that the Workers had not countries, and the concept of Worldism/internacionalism was inserted in my mind, and I do not care if the concept of Internationalism/Worldism came to the English, German, French, or Patua language in certain date, because I do not care about Linguistic, nations, passports, or a piece of fabrics called flags, I do care about political and class consciousness, that is my main concern, in regard to others factors, it is like what they say in Jamaica: "Those are not breezes which will knock down any coconuts from the coconut tree" That is reason why they killed many who read Marx,*( they will not kill anybody for reading comics books, superman, or Batman ), because we did not have a childish mentality, we were matured men and women, we were digging into a new world of ideas, to become independent thinkers, nobody was able to dominate, and control us, or to put the boots in our necks, or to carry a rifle to defend their stupid systemBy reading Marx I understood that any worker who defend its own rulers, is defending his/her own enemies, and anybody who defends them become an agent of the ruling class, and some peoples are paid agents of the capitalist class. Eugene had the real concept of Internationalism/Worldism: I have not country to fight for, my country is the world, and I am a citizen of the world. I don't have any passports, birth certificate, marriage certificate, I had a doctorate degree and I threw away in the trash
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.