"Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word" - objectively different nations exist but not in bourgeois view as something that about bourgeoisie claim as representer of all nation

The working men have no country

All capitalist countries share the same feature: class antagonisms

History itself is based on class antagonisms

You then oppose to majority of Pakistani people @Deleted User as servant of colonialism, in fact slavery of your nation in hands of western imperialism

Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.

For example, feudal property was abolished in favour of bourgouis property

But that would be in turn to property relations

@Borzo yes but proletarians talk on different languages. That would be overcome in process of communist constructions. You talk now in way of bourgeois cosmopolitism which reject objective national difference.

Freeman -> patrician -> lord -> guild master -> bourgousie

@Musketar (Alex) cringed

Which is why we must make a worldwide language

western imperialism was great

English would be the smart choice

you don't know about me or my people

In the ussr, Russian was the smart choice

Communist do not reject nationality they reject bourgeois as representers of all nation (bourgeois ideology)

now stfu

@Deleted User have you heard of a classcuck?

@Deleted User you don't know about your people too as probably more live in European reality rather then your country.

Classcuck
A person living under a socio-economic system and who doesn't realize their subservient position in that system and even will actively defend it, e.g. a slave in the slave societies, a peasant in feudal societies, a wage-slave in a capitalist society. (synonymous to class traitor)

In proportion as the exploitation of one individual by another will also be put an end to, the exploitation of one nation by another will also be put an end to.

@Borzo but in USSR didn't reject national languages of republics

Yet Russian was taught in every school

I learned it very early of age

Russian was as language for international language of all Union

I do not (barely) know Belarusian, however, despite being born and raised in soviet Belarus

but also studying on national language of republics

Why of course, national languages of republics are artefacts of history

I know about Belarus but we do not reject best of all national cultures. Soviet Union helped each nationality develop its culture.

It's a part of national culture

That culture, the loss of which he laments, is, for the enormous majority, a mere training to act as a machine.

@Borzo you try to artificialy overcome process of creating united communist humanity

Yes

We live together or we die alone

It is the orthodox Marxist way

All objections urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating material products, have, in the same way, been urged against the Communistic mode of producing and appropriating intellectual products. Just as, to the bourgeois, the disappearance of class property is the disappearance of production itself, so the disappearance of class culture is to him identical with the disappearance of all culture.

This is clearly not the case, however.

But, you say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations, when we replace home education by social.

And your education! Is not that also social, and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, by the intervention direct or indirect, of society, by means of schools, &c.?

No this is abstact cosmopolitism as this process is dialectical also about national question