Nationalists - masters of deception

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.