One world without
borders
"Because the
condition of the workers of all countries is the same, because their interests
are the same, their enemies the same, they must also fight together, they must
oppose the brotherhood of the bourgeoisie of all nations with a brotherhood of
the workers of all nations." - Engels
Just as capitalism is a world system of society, so too must
socialism be. There never has been, and never can be, socialism in just one
country. Socialism will be one world-wide community without national
boundaries, a united humanity, sharing a world of common interests, would also
share world administration. This is the socialist alternative to the way that
capitalism divides the planet into rival states and sets people against each
other. But this does not rule out local democracy. It is sometimes said that
world administration would mean power of central control over local democracy.
In fact a democratic system of decision-making would require that the basic unit
of social organisation would be the local community. However, the nature of
some of the problems we face and the many goods and services presently
produced, such as raw materials, energy sources, agricultural products, world
transport and communications, need production and distribution to be organised
at a world level. One of the great technical developments under capitalism has
been communications and the rapid processing and distribution of information.
This will alter our awareness of being in the world and the boundaries between
what is local and distant are shifted or become blurred. So, as well as the
face-to-face contacts of our daily lives at home and at work with friends,
neighbours and relatives, and as well as our part in local affairs, at the same
time we would be involved with all other people in world issues and events of
every kind.
The motivation for this new world comes from the common
class interest of those who produce but do not possess. An important part of
this motivation comes from the global problems thrown up by capitalism. There
are no national solutions to world problems like world poverty, hunger and
disease. Ecological problems make a nonsense of the efforts of governments. War
and the continuing threat of nuclear war affect us all. The problem of uneven
development means that many producers in the underdeveloped countries suffer
starvation, disease and absolute poverty. All of these problems of capitalism
can only be solved within the framework of a socialist world.
One of the great technical developments under capitalism has
been communications and the rapid processing and distribution of information.
This will alter our awareness of being in the world and the boundaries between
what is local and distant are shifted or become blurred. From one moment to
another we are able to take in local news, issues and events and those on the
regional or world scene. Socialism will be a co-operative world wide system.
Nations and frontiers and governments and armed forces will disappear. Groups
of people may well preserve their languages and customs but this will have
nothing to do with claiming territorial rights or military dominances over
pieces of the world surface. To move forward, the dispossessed majority across
the world must now look beyond the artificial barriers of nation-states and
regional blocs, to perceive a common identity and purpose. .
Because political power in capitalism is organised on a
territorial basis each socialist party has the task of seeking democratically
to gain political power in the country where it operates. This however is
merely an organisational convenience; there is only one socialist movement, of
which the separate socialist organisations are constituent parts. When the
socialist movement grows larger its activities will be fully co-ordinated
through its world-wide organisation. It is suggested that socialist ideas might
develop unevenly across the world, and that socialists of only a part of the
world were in a position to get political control. This relates to the
possibility that the socialist movement could be larger in one country than in
another and at the stage of being able to gain control of the machinery of
government before the socialist movements elsewhere were as far advanced. The
decision about the action to be taken would be one for the whole of the
socialist movement in the light of all the circumstances at the time. It would
certainly be a folly, however, to base a programme of political action on the
assumption that socialist ideas will develop unevenly and that we must
therefore be prepared to establish "socialism" in one country or even
a group of countries like the European Community. For a start, it is an
unreasonable assumption that socialist ideas will develop unevenly. Given the
world-wide nature of capitalism and its social relationships, the vast majority
of people live under basically similar conditions, and because of the
world-wide system of communications and media, there is no reason for socialist
ideas to be restricted to one part of the world. Any attempt to establish
"socialism" in one country would be bound to fail owing to the
pressures exerted by the world market on that country's means of production.
Those who become socialists will realise this and also the importance of
uniting with workers in all countries. The socialist idea is not one that could
spread unevenly. Thus the socialist parties will be in a position to gain
political control in the industrially advanced countries within a short period
of each other. (It is conceivable that in some less developed countries, where
the working class is weak in numbers, the privileged rulers may be able to
retain their class position for a little longer. But as soon as the workers had
won in the advanced countries they would give all the help needed elsewhere.
The less developed countries might present socialism with a problems, but they
do not constitute a barrier to the immediate establishment of socialism as a
world system.)
"...By creating the world market, big industry has
already brought all the peoples of the Earth, and especially the civilized
peoples, into such close relation with one another that none is independent of
what happens to the others...It follows that the communist revolution will not
merely be a national phenomenon but must take place simultaneously in all
civilized countries – that is to say, at least in England, America, France, and
Germany.... It is a universal revolution and will, accordingly, have a
universal range...The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in
accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with
each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves,
just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the
abolition of their basis, private property." Engels
There is but one world and we exist as one people in need of
each other and with the same basic needs. There is far more that unites us than
can ever divide us along cultural, nationalistic or religious lines. Together
we can create a civilisation worth living in, but before that happens we need
the conscious cooperation of ordinary people across the world, united in one
common cause—to create a world in which each person has free access to the
benefits of civilisation, a world without borders or frontiers, social classes
or leaders and a world in which production is at last freed from the artificial
constraints of profit and used for the good of humanity—socialism. There is in
reality only one world. It is high time we reclaimed it.
A nation is not a natural community that existed before the
state, but that it's the other way round: the state existed first and then
proceeded to impose on those it ruled over the idea that they formed a
“nation”. States pre-existed and in a very real sense created nations. Nations
are groups of people ruled by a state or a would-be state. The Polish
nationalist Pilsudski observed that "It is the state that makes the
nation, not the nation the state." What is a nation? It is simply the
people and the territory which have been appropriated by a class of robbers at
some point in history. It has less to do with a common language, religion,
race, culture, and all the other things which nationalists imagine or pretend
are essential ingredients in the making of nations.
The concept of the nation is very real force in the minds of
people today. The idea that the world is naturally divided into nations is
widespread. This can be partly explained by the propaganda of nationalist groups,
but there are other reasons too. People are not machines; they need something
else, something to sustain them. By no means do they get this at work, they
feel lost in this vast meaningless world of capital, just another cog in the
machine, and they would be right. So naturally they seek meaning. Often they
find meaning in the idea of the nation. This search for meaning and identity
can often be found in the notions of “us and them” even though this is
profoundly illogical. It is no coincidence that a person with a immensely
draining and alienating job, say repetitive work, will tend to cling
desperately to this collective idea of nationality, as they find meaning and
comfort in this idea, since they have no meaning in their work.the ideology of
nationalism ultimately means that workers and capitalists living in a
particular geographical area must have a common interest. As with most myths
there is an element of truth in this. Normally, a common language is shared
(Language became a factor in establishing state power, and thus it became a
factor in determining a "nation". It's no coincidence that the rise
of the nation-state coincides with the invention of the dictionary) and on a
superficial level at least, a common "culture" can be defined, i.e.
"the British way of life". However, if one probes slightly deeper
such an analysis fails to stand up.
The only way to define such national identity is to define
it in terms of what and who it is not, i.e. negatively. Thus nationalism sets
itself as being against other countries, striving to define a uniqueness of
national cultures as to once and for all set its country apart from others, to
know itself by what is un-like it. At one extreme this can include myths about
race and blood, trying to attach the national abstraction to some trait of
genetics or similar such nonsense. Since people have a strong desire to retain
their own perceived identity, and to have a good opinion of themselves, often
the creeds based on such identities function in a highly irrational, and ultimately,
defensive way. Thus it is usually a sign of desperation and of an incapacity to
formulate a coherent argument when our masters resort to playing the
nationalist card.
All this of course benefits the ruling class. If the workers
were ever to put their passion into something like socialism, then it would be
the end of the ruling class. It benefits them to see the workers placing
meaning and identity in things that are irrelevant and mythical to the truth of
class struggle. Keeping the workers unable to see the true state of affairs in
the world works to the ruling class's advantage. Class existed before the
nation state. Throughout history one ruling class or another has attempted to
impose its view on those they ruled over, manipulating their passions and
pretending that its interests and their interests were the same. So, in another
of life's ironies, the masses waste their energy fighting amongst themselves,
believing their interests and the interests of their rulers are linked.
Nationalism has always been one of the biggest poisons for the working class.
It has served to divide workers into different nation states not only literally
but ideologically. Today it is probably fair to say that a majority of
workers—to one extent or another—align themselves to their domestic ruling
class. Historically, nationalism and national feeling have been the tool of the
capitalist class for both winning and retaining power.The ruling class have
cultivated such ideas as nationalism, propagating the illusion that we live in
a society with a collective social interest. The more enlightened capitalists
probably saw the effects of separating and alienating people from each other
and their labour, and so stepped up the spreading of beliefs like nationalism
in order to try and convince people that they were not so exploited as they
really were, and that everyone had a common interest. Nationalism is a
relatively new concept for social control, (religion was once the principle
method of control over the majority).
To the Socialist, class-consciousness is the breaking-down
of all barriers to understanding. The conflict between the classes is more than
a struggle for each to gain from the other: it is the division which reaches
across all others. The class-conscious working man knows where he stands in
society. His interests are opposed at every point to those of the capitalist
class. Nationalism is not their interest but their rulers'. The presence of
nationalist ideas is an indication that some groups in society feel its real
material interests are being frustrated by forces outside or even inside the
nation. But the desire to achieve their aims is never expressed in terms of
their own needs only. In order to enlist the necessary working class support
such arguments as “justice”, “freedom”, and “the nation” are used to justify
the real bone of contention and to give it an aura of sanctity. The concept of
nationality, the idea that an area dominated by a privileged class which
thrives on the enforced poverty of that area's productive class, should grant
to the latter the right to live there providing its members accept their
wage-slave status and endorse the right of the privileged to live on their
backs is offensive to any intelligent person. Those who promote such nonsense are
enemies of our class .
The world of nationalism is full of contradictions, odd
ideas and illogical notions. The idea that a line of a map, a so-called
“national border”, should actually mean something concrete to the workers is
laughable. Let's imagine that a human, born in the area of land known as
France, is standing two feet from the “border” with the piece of land known as
Germany. Another human is facing them from across this line, a so-called
“German”. Are these two people utterly alien to each other? They may speak
differently and have differing customs perhaps, but that is all due to material
conditions and the ideology of the ruling group. Both people have to sell their
labour power for wages, and are manipulated and exploited by a capitalist
class. A typical nationalist would argue that they are alien because all French
people are a certain way and all Germans are a certain differing way. But any
differences that do exist are minor. A true understanding of the implications
of socialism will reveal that the very idea of nations as a political concept
can have no part to play, though there will of course still be cultural
differences among people (e.g. language). Despite many workers finding it
difficult to communicate with and understand each other because of language or cultural
barriers this does not alter the fact that they are all part of one globalised
exploited mass with more in common with each other than with their indigenous
bosses.
Workers do not share a common interest with their bosses. It
does not follow that if the "national wealth" increases, or if trade
increases, or even if profit increases, that higher wages will be gained by
workers. In fact capitalists can only make a profit by appropriating the wealth
produced by the workers to themselves; but in the topsy-turvy world of
ideology, it seems that workers will only have good pay and wealth when the
capitalists are doing well. So it appears that workers and capitalists share a
common interest. In fact, the interest of workers is conditioned by the
interest of the capitalist, in exactly the same manner as hostages held by a
kidnapper: unless the kidnapper- capitalists's demands are met, they will not
allow the hostage-workers to have what they need to live. There is a
well-documented effect of hostage situations, called "The Stockholm
Syndrome" in which hostages under duress began to identify with their
kidnappers, and believe in their cause. Nationalism works in much the same way.
It is the Stockholm Syndrome on a grand scale. The working class who are
dependent on the capitalists, to whom they are bonded by state-boundaries
across which they are not permitted to escape, begin to believe that they share
an identity with them.
Leninist-inspired distinction between the nationalism of the
oppressors (which is always bad) and the nationalism of the oppressed
(allegedly always worth supporting, even if critically). This even though that
oppressed nations, once "free", can easily become oppressors in turn.
Oppression, however, has to be seen in class, not national terms. Both
so-called oppressor and oppressed nations consist of oppressor and oppressed
classes, and "national liberation" enables an oppressor class to
consolidate and expand its power, rather than freeing all the people of a
formerly oppressed nation. The absurdity of Lenin's theory can be proved by a
living example from the life of a worker in the Indian subcontinent. Suppose he
is 70 years old and now a citizen of so-called independent Bangladesh. He was a
subject of Pakistan and before that of the British Empire. According to Lenin's
theory, he was subjugated by "British imperialists" up to 1947, then
by "Pakistani imperialists" up to 1972. Now by which? Yet all through
these years he remained a wage slave, not free, though his masters and
nationality changed. What a ridiculous proposition is Lenin's theory! Many on
the political left will argue that Palestinian nationalism is somehow
progressive and different to Israeli nationalism and should therefore be
supported. As socialists, we say that this is a dangerous poison that is being
spread by the left .We argue that every nation state is by its very nature
anti-working class. The “nation” is a myth as there can be no community of
interests between two classes in antagonism with one another, the non-owners in
society and the owners. Self-determination for "nations" just equates
with freedom and self-determination for a ruling class. Lenin's theory of
imperialism made the most significant struggle at world level not the class
struggle but the struggle between states, between so-called anti-imperialist
and progressive states and so-called imperialist and reactionary states. This
was a dangerous diversion from the class struggle and led to workers supporting
the killing in wars of other workers in the interest of one or other state and
its ruling class.
To sum it up, the illusions of nationality are yet another
tool of the ruling class, intended to trick workers into thinking that this
really is some kind of collective society, and to misplace their passions that
could otherwise be directed into the class struggle. Nationalism is the
ideology which seeks to justify the capitalist division of the world into
separate “nation-states”. We utterly reject this view of the way humanity
should organise itself. We condemn all nationalisms equally. When countries
achieved independence little changed except the personnel of the state
machinery
As socialists we re-affirm that all peoples should seek
their emancipation, not as members of nations or religions or ethnic groups,
but as human beings, as members of the human race. They should unite to abolish
the division of the world into so-called nation-states and to establish a World
Cooperative Commonwealth of which we will all be free and equal members -
citizens of the world, not subjects of nation-states. The goal of the socialist
movement is not to assist in the creation of even more states but to establish
a real world community without frontiers where all states as they currently
exist will be destroyed. In a socialist society communities, towns and cities
will have the opportunity to thrive – and people will no doubt feel an
attachment to places that are real and tangible – but the nation states will be
consigned to the history books where they belong
No comments:
Post a Comment