💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › politics › SPUNK › sp000983.txt captured on 2022-04-29 at 02:43:23.
⬅️ Previous capture (2022-03-01)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
[The following appeared in Insurrection, an anarchist magazine
from Britain of the late 80's. This is one kind of discussion
which we do not find so often in North America. In the next
week Autonomedia hopes to make several of these articles
available electronically.]
INTERNATIONALISM
A restricted view of the struggle is doomed to failure.
If not in terms of immediate results (improved conditions,
growth of revolutionary consciousness, development of
the movement, etc) at least in the long term modifying of
power relations.
The revolutionary struggle is "total". It involves the
possibility of life for the exploited in all the diffeent
parts of the world, hence the need for the "total"
intervention of the revolutionary even when operating in
a circumscribed and therefore "immediate" struggle.
But this interest cannot limit itself to simply reading
the newspapers and keeping oneself informed on what is
happening in the world. It must go a little (or a lot)
further than that.
Proletarian internationalism is an active intervention,
a participation in the struggles of the exploited that
extends everywhere.
But there is a mistaken way of considering this basic
revolutionary perspective. It was applied by the
authoritarian parts of the movement in the seventies
with disastrous results. This mistake has mechanical
characteristics and consists of taking what one
considers to be the highest point of the clash
(ie the situation of the peoples in the third world)
where social and economic conflicts are more obvious,
and carrying them-as a strategic and methodological
propsal-to within the situation of the more advanced
countries (the so-called metropolitan situations). In
the past one heard of bringing Vietnam to Berlin or
London or Milan. The mistake was in sanctifying the
open armed clash unreservedly and in transferring these
aspects to situations which had, and still have very
different characteristics.
But in practice it was not a question of real
proletarian internationalism. The far-off situation was
seen as an occasion for pushing the local situation.
The transferral en bloc was done with a view of obtaining
sympathy and propaganda on the wave of results that the
struggles of those far-off peoples were achieving.
We feel that today more than ever real proletarian
internationalism can go towards one of two solutions.
Firstly, the classical one which is spoken about less and
less now and has come to be seen only through the
distorting lense of a now out-dated romanticism, is that
of direct participation through internationalist groups or
brigades. A lot could be said about the subject which we
shall put off until some future date where it can be gone
into in more detail among comrades.
Alternatively there is the other aspect, that of real
"support" to the internationalist struggle.
It should be said that this support cannot be reduced
to a simple subscription. Even if very useful, it is
certainly not the first thing that the exploited engaged
in a struggle expect. There is also the so-called
"political" support, ie counter-information, demonstrations,
picketing of consulates and embassies, letters of protest.
All very useful things.
And then there is the attack against those responsible
for exploitation. Both internally and externally. Without
wanting to give this aspect priveledge over all the
others, we must say-very clearly-that to do only the first
renders such activity ineffective. It means reducing the
manifestation of thought and and opinion to a banal
exercise of democratic dissent. It means the transformation
of financial support into an act of charity which is mainly
an alibi for oneself. To do the two things together has a
more serious signifigance and corresponds to what we
consider to be true proletarian internationalism.
a.m.b.