Kinship may not only have a linguistic, ethnic and religious dimension. It can reject ethno-cultural tribalism as such and replace it with other social links and divisions, for instance based on class. Such were the consequences of the penetration of Marxism (and especially Leninism) into foreign policy. Marxism-leninism resulted in an attempt to build a new form of international solidarity based on proletarian class identity. The first and most important directive of the foreign policy of the USSR and the socialist camp was the doctrine of proletarian internationalism. It was also the official doctrine of the diplomacy of the People’s Republic of Poland.
USSR leaders consistently assured that socialism meant building a new type of international relations. The principle of proletarian internationalism was to be the foundation of the new order. It emerged early in the development of the international workers movement. It was expressed, among other things, by the slogan: “proletarians of all countries, unite”. And Marx, in the context of the Polish January 1863 Uprising, argued that it served not only the interests of the working class, but the liberation of all oppressed nations. For Lenin, it became an axiom that part of proletarian internationalism was to support national liberation and anti-colonial movements.
But its main goal was to consolidate the workers movement. In the spirit of internationalism, the internationals of the workers’ parties were created, including the Comintern.
After the victory of the Bolshevik revolution, the doctrine of internationalism acquired the character of a state policy. It was with its help that the armed suppression of the independence of the national republics in the South Caucasus, Belarus and Ukraine by Soviet Russia was justified, as well as the Bolshevik aid to the German and the Hungarian revolutions. And when hopes for a revolutionary chain reaction in Europe collapsed, supporting workers movements in the capitalist world and national liberation movements in colonial states became the absolute priority. Repeatedly leading to accusations of exporting revolution, sponsorship of subversive and irredentist activities.
But when geopolitical considerations required it, for example after Rapallo or the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact, solidarism was extinguished, which was felt acutely by the communists in Germany. Stalin did not lift a finger as they were being packed into concentration camps.
Proletarian internationalism found a new theoretical envelope after the Second World War. As a consequence of Yalta, the camp of the socialist countries was established. And the communist revolution won in China and began to spread over Asia (DPRK, Indochina). Socialism was proclaimed in Cuba.
The overall doctrine of proletarian internationalism thus included three components.
First, solidarity within the community of socialist states. Second, support for communist and workers movements around the world. Third, fostering national liberation movements, decolonization and emancipation of nations.
The coherence of the doctrine of internationalism was disturbed by the exclusion from the community of Yugoslavia accused of being renegade in the 1940s and 1950s, the great schism with China in the late 1950s, and a small schism with Albania at the beginning of 1960s. It turned out that, contrary to the doctrine, states that adhere to communist ideology can even conduct military operations against each other (the Damanski incident in 1969). The geopolitical practice was clearly different from the theoretical assumptions.
Internationalism assumed a special character of relations within the community of socialist states. The fact that this community did not include all states building socialism and ruled by communist parties (but only those that recognized the hegemony of the Soviets) meant that Soviet (and not only) ideologists had to propose a scientific definition of this community that would cover the fact that belonging to community is simply determined by the recognition of the leadership of the USSR in this group. Thus, the socialist community was a formula for accepting Soviet imperialism (hegemonism).
Consequently, on-duty ideologists stated that membership in the community was determined by the fulfilment of four conditions: the dictatorship of the proletariat that functioned in practice, the socialist system in the economy, Marxist ideology as the basis of social development, and anti-imperialist foreign policy. Relations within the community were to be based on three main principles: socialist unity, internationalism and mutual assistance. Socialist unity required constant and close coordination. The existence of a conflict of interests among socialist states was allowed, but it was described as non-antagonistic. These conflicts did not interfere with overall homeostasis. Socialist internationalism was treated as an extension of proletarian internationalism. It was supposed to overcome the legacy of old nationalisms and prevent the emergence of new ones. Mutual assistance was treated as a necessary complement to traditional forms of economic cooperation.
The socialist community developed two institutional platforms: the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance and the Warsaw Pact. It is significant that at the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Comecon-related issues for many years were led by the department of socialist countries, while the Warsaw Pact was under the responsibility of a separate department for relations with the USSR.
Internationalism was compromised by the endless Soviet interference in the life of the so-called socialist community, manual control of the activities of communist parties in the world and geopolitical instrumentalization of national liberation movements. As one of my philosopher acquaintances told me, who was assigned to work in the editorial office of the magazine “Problems of Peace and Socialism” in Prague, he was not surprised by the presence of Irish Republican Army “theoreticians” in the queue to the internationalist cash register to collect their salary.
“Internationalism” was one of the textbook examples of Orwellian double-speak. It disappeared from the pages of the theory of international relations after the collapse of the world socialist system. And it is impossible in any way to use its noble associations (overcoming national prejudices) to promote international empathy and healthy cosmopolitanism anymore.
