Those
who voted leave in the EU referendum wish Britain to remain a fully
independent sovereign state, with Westminster not Strasburg as the
supreme law-making body. It is the narrow view of the nationalist, in
this case of the British nationalist. It is a view shared by many on
the Left . It is not a view shared by the Socialist Party. We are
neither British Brexit nationalists nor European Union federalists
but world socialists. But we can see the special fallacy of the
nationalist argument. In the world as it is today, it is neither
possible nor desirable for the people of one part to stand apart from
the rest. We
are already living in a global village where what happens in one part
of the world effects us all. In terms of the production of wealth one
world already exists. The goods we consume and the machines and
materials used to produce them are all joint products of workers from
many parts of the world - something for British nationalists to
ponder over as they drink their tea. There has been a growing
consciousness that we are all inhabitants of a single world, that we
share the globe in common despite our different languages and
cultures, is something to be encouraged. Indeed it is essential if we
are to tackle problems such as global warming.
The
European federalists of the SNP for all their faults, at least
realise that the people living on this island off the north-west
coast of the Eurasian land-mass need to be closely associated with
those on the mainland. Where they go wrong is in imagining that this
can be fruitful within the context of capitalism. A federation of
European capitalist states will no more provide a framework for the
resolution of working-class problems than the so-called independent
so-called nation-state. What is required is association with the
other peoples of Europe, and beyond that with those of the rest of
the world, on the basis of socialism. What is required is not a
European market, nor a single currency, nor a European super-state
but world socialism where the Earth's resources will be owned in
common and democratically controlled through various inter-linked
administrative and decision-making bodies at world, regional and
local levels. We appreciate that this vision of a united world
represents a nightmare scenario for some but that's their problem not
ours.
Capitalism
is an economic system where, under pressure from the market, profits
are accumulated as further capital, i.e. as money invested in
production with a view to making further profits. This is not a
matter of the individual choice of those in control of capitalist
production – it’s not due to their personal greed or inhumanity –
it’s something forced on them by the operation of the system. And
which operates irrespective of whether a particular economic unit is
the property of an individual, a limited company, the state or even
of a workers’ cooperative. Some radicals have opted for
cooperatives where workers could elect their own management committee
, but not even this would make much of a difference. The coop would
still have to take decisions in accordance with what the market
dictated. Real control by the producers over the production and
allocation of wealth is not possible within an exchange economy. The
production of wealth is now a process involving millions of men and
women in even,' part of the world. What used to be the division of
labour between individual skilled workers has become, with the
development of modern technology, a division of the work of
production between hundreds of thousands of collectively-operated
workplaces (farms, mines, docks, railways, factories, offices,
warehouses) spread all over the world. Indeed, it is no exaggeration
to say that every article produced today is the product of the world
labour force co-operating within this world-wide division of labour.
Wealth production is no longer individual or local or national; it is
social and worldwide.
“Anti-globalisation”
is not a very good choice of name for progressives since you can’t
be against globalisation. Well you can, but it doesn’t make sense.
Globalisation – in the sense of the world becoming more integrated,
of the emergence of “one world” – is basically a good thing,
part of the preparation of the material basis for a world socialist
society.
A
single world society already exists but, because the workplaces of
the world are controlled by enterprises, it takes the form of a world
exchange economy. The fact that there is only one, worldwide exchange
economy is obscured by the political division of the world into
states, each with the power to issue its own currency, impose
tariffs, raise taxes and pay subsidies. The different economic
policies of these states mean that conditions in the world market
vary and give rise to the illusion that rather than there being one
world economy there are as many "national economies" as
there are states. But although states can, and do, try to change
world market conditions in their favour, because of the worldwide
character of the productive process they do not have the power to
isolate exchange within their frontiers from exchange outside. Far
from it. World market conditions are in the end the most important
factor states have to take into account when formulating their
policies. They, like enterprises, have to work within the terms of
reference of the exchange economy. Of course, states do have the
power to make laws about the production and allocation of wealth, as
about any other human activity, but enforcing such law is another
matter. The natural and industrial resources of the world are now
controlled by profit-seeking private and state enterprises. In every
state only a small minority can draw on these profits as a source of
personal income. Whether or not they have title deeds to prove it,
they are in practice the owners of the means of production. This
applies equally to profit-taking politicians and managers and to
shareholders and bondholders. Collectively these owners form a class
with exclusive control — a monopoly — over the means of
production. This class monopoly is the basis of modern society.
When
we say “Another World is Possible”, we know what we mean, another
sort of globalisation is possible: a world without frontiers in which
all the resources of the planet,have become the common heritage of
all humanity and are used, under democratic control, to turn out what
is needed by people to live and to enjoy life. As far as we are
concerned, that is the only framework within which can be solved the
problems facing humanity, not only obviously world problems such as
global warming, wars and the threat of war, but also more “local”
problems such as in the fields of healthcare, education, transport
and the like but which are basically the same in all countries.
No comments:
Post a Comment