On Internationalism

Some leftists use the term "internationalism" in various abstract and ambiguous ways. Most of the time, the term internationalism is used to justify their individualistic unscientific motives. This is why people who call themselves internationalists are so oblivious to international development. Most of these so-called internationalists are clueless about multipolarity and its new developments. They are oblivious to new developments in international affairs in the new era of multipolarity. And sometimes so-called internationalists are unipolar. And their so-called internalism is a cover for imperialism and a unipolar world order. And these so-called internalistionalists rarely show solidarity with our poor world comrades who are still fighting for national liberation from colonialism. Where are those "internaţionalists" when our comrades in Burkina Faso, Niger, Mali, Gabon, and other African countries established anti-colonial regimes against French colonialists? The same so-called internationalists ignore this development while glorifying reactionaries in France in 1968. Because of the welfare spillover of wealth that the French plundered from Africans and other French colonies, those French white students were able to carry out immature reactionary protests. Those "internationalists" are unaware that a significant portion of French government revenue is derived from colonial rent. And the majority of these countries have military bases, and in 2011, France carried out military intervention in Cote d'Ivoire.

While these so-called internationalists romanticise cultural commodities from Western countries, they fail to recognise that these commodities are produced through the plundering of poor countries' wealth. They justify calling these cultural commodities high art because of what Marx called consumer fetish, in which social relations of commodity production are ignored and commodities are accepted in ways that appear superficially.

As a result, the term "internationalism" should be associated with Marxist Leninism. If one considers themselves to be an internationalist, they should have a scientific understanding of the world's dynamics. Then they would realise the colonial intersection of worldly affairs. Consider it to be a primary contradiction. As Mao pointed out, in order to conduct scientific analysis, one must align the range of contradictions based on gravity. If this is the case, one should immediately recognise imperialism as the primary contradiction in the range of contradictions. Decoupling from colonially positioned production forces and realigning production forces for national interns should be a priority for poor countries.

"There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen"--Vladimir Ilyich Lenin.

There is a fresh wind of hope blowing in the global south. The old imperialist unipolar world order is disintegrating, and a new multipolar world order is forming. From a dialectical standpoint, this emerging condition represents a progressive trend. 

And progressives everywhere should now learn how to properly position themselves in a multipolar world. But where do these phoney internationalists stand on the issue of multipolarity? 

Internationalism is not some hollow abstract term that can be used to justify petty individual motives. Internationalism is the scientific positioning of one's country's masses in the international context.And share the humankind's collective spirit