Members of the Socialist Party prefer to describe ourselves as "world socialists" rather than
"international socialists."
Socialism
can only be a united world community without frontiers and not the
federation of countries suggested by the word “international”.
The term assumes
and accepts the concepts of nations/nation-states.
Roll
on 8 June so we won't hear the humbug of the politicians for a few years.
The issues of poverty, unemployment and crime, however, won't
disappear so easily though. There
always seem to be a plentiful supply of Scottish nationalists who
claim that the "English" parliament doesn't care about the
Scots, who should get their own parliament and run their own affairs.
The Brixton and Tottenham riots happened almost within spitting
distance of the House of Commons; clearly, having the "mother of
parliaments" on your doorstep is no sure way to peace and
prosperity. The
Scottish Parliament over the years has illustrated that it can be
just as helpless as Westminster when dealing with social problems.
Capitalism
has to begun to become a dirty word again. All over the world people
are protesting against the profit system and the effect it is having
on the quality of life . The
left-nationalists, despite referring to themselves as “socialists”
have no confidence in socialism, little confidence in the workers to
win through. They tell us in the Socialist Party, your socialism will
come...eventually...someday ... when we are all dead and gone. The
task of building and establishing socialism does not fall to them
but to others sometime in the far future. There is no logic to this
whatsoever. For the world is ready now and painfully waiting – how
is socialism to ever come in the future when we are never to explain
it to people here now, for it takes a while? What will happen that
might cause this future embrace of socialism, we are not told.
Capitalism
is by its nature divisive and competitive, whether it divides people
on the grounds of race, sex, nationality or geographical location.
Workers have got to transcend these artificial differences and
recognise our common interest - that of a degraded, exploited class.
Once we recognise our basic class interests then no force on earth
can prevent us from acting accordingly, and putting an end to all
social division once and for all.
We
have no objection to “cultural diversity”. Differences of
language, food, music and the like will continue to exist in a united
socialist world; indeed would no longer be subjected to
“Mcdonaldisation” as today under capitalism. We would add that
different cultures can exist in the same geographical area and that
individuals can partake of elements of different cultures (you don‘t
have to come from Scotland to enjoy its folk music or from China to
enjoy Chinese food). Our objection is to the exploitation of cultural
differences for political ends, as for instance to set up or maintain
a state or as the basis for a political party.
There
is an old nationalist lie that we are one country, one people,
working together for a common interest. This ideology allows
politicians to present us as if we have one common interest.
Nationalism allows the politicians to limit democratic choice on the
grounds that there is only one national interest and therefore only
one general programme, one set of policies to be followed. These days
there are plenty of people who say that class is irrelevant and that
in fact it never was. The Socialist Party is not amongst these. One
of the basic points about liberal democracy is that, as we put it in
our declaration of principles, "all parties are but the
expression of class interests". Democracy is not a set of rules
or a parliament; it is a process, a process that must be fought for.
The struggle for democracy is the struggle for socialism. It is not a
struggle for reforms, for this or that political system, for this or
that leader, for some rule change or other—it is the struggle for
an idea, for a belief, a belief that we can run our own lives, that
we have a right to a say in how society is run, for a belief that the
responsibility for democracy lies not upon the politicians or their
bureaucrats, but upon ourselves.
Whether
Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom or becomes a sovereign
independent state will make no difference whatsoever to the basic
structure of society where a privileged class monopolises the means
of production while the rest have to work for wages and where wealth
is produced not to satisfy human needs but for sale with a view to
profit. It won't even make much difference to your present standard
of living in terms of wage levels, housing, unemployment and the
other problems you face. it is this class structure of society which
is the basic cause of the economic and social problems faced by the
great majority of society, those who, whatever their religious
background, depend for a living on earning a wage. This is why a mere
constitutional change will make no difference, not even a radical one
achieved by violence. The Irish Republic achieved "independence"
in 1921. What difference has this made to the position of wage and
salary earners there? It has merely provided a different political
framework within which they can suffer the problems of capitalism,
governed by Irish, instead of British, politicians representing
capitalist interests. It has meant little more than painting the
pillar boxes green. Not, of course, that staying part of the
United Kingdom is going to make any difference to these problems
either. The only change that will is a world-wide social revolution
that would make all that is in and on the Earth the common heritage
of all mankind to be used to provide an abundance of wealth to which
all could have free access according to need. This essentially
peaceful revolution can only occur when the great majority of people
in all countries are in favour of it and organise democratically to
carry it out. It involves a rejection of all nationalism and all
attempts to solve problems on a national scale.
No comments:
Post a Comment