Pages

Pages

Thursday, May 18, 2017

Neither Union Jack nor Saltire but the Red Flag

An independent Scotland would be neither better nor worse than any other capitalist state, however, the Scottish Socialist Party and Tommy Sheridan's Solidarity have painted it in pseudo-socialist colours, portraying the SNP as progressive. Scottish nationalism represents the interests of a faction of the capitalist class as represented by the SNP, hoping for a greater share of Scotland’s assets, including oil and tax revenues, plus welcoming multinational corporations by offering low business taxes and a subservient working class. Only 10% of whisky is Scottish owned and 80% of salmon production is owned by firms based outside Scotland. As for ‘Scotland’s oil’, of the 20 firms investing to increase oil production only 5 are based in the UK, none in Scotland. Companies owned and registered in Scotland account for one-third of the financial services revenue generated by the financial and banking sector.

The left-nationalists are doing the dirty work of the capitalists of duping our fellow-workers. The Socialist Party calls upon working people to reject nationalism and separatism and instead adopt the perspective of world socialism. We are for human solidarity and oppose false divisions. Real solidarity is not based on keeping the Union Jack flying or replacing it with the Saltire. Solidarity is more crucial than ever in an era of globalised capital in which transnational corporations shift their capital across borders and into tax havens. Separatism creates an illusion of democratic control while leaving the power in the hands of the financial elite.

There are those who see the constant globalisation of production and life as a threat to "national sovereignty". This reactionary position has been officially adopted by most of the left-wing parties thus showing that they have no right whatsoever to call themselves "socialist" or "communists". Socialism can only be a world-wide system and socialists do not defend capitalist national independence. On the contrary, one of our criticisms of capitalism is precisely that it has divided the world into competing "nation-states". What we want is not national independence but a socialist world without frontiers.

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 because its material basis is the world-wide and interdependent means of production that capitalism has built up. The bulk of the wealth produced in the world today is produced by the co-operative labour of the millions employed to operate these means of production. What is needed now, to establish socialism, is a conscious political decision on the part of these millions across the world to run society in their own interests. But this does not rule out 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. Corresponding to this, of course, there would be a need for a democratic world administration, controlled by delegates from the regional and local levels of organisation throughout the world.

When the working class becomes socialist there is no reason to assume that this will be confined to those in one country. Quite the contrary. First, because the conditions and problems which face wage and salary earners everywhere are essentially the same. And so, of course, is the solution. Second, because Socialism is the concept of a world society so that, even if it did happen that the Socialist movement grew more quickly in one country than in all others, then the Socialists in that country would take action to correct this imbalance by helping the movement in other countries.

The ideal world for the capitalist class is one where national boundaries are only political boundaries posing no serious obstacles to the movement of money. The capitalist class may claim allegiance to the country of his or her birth but will nevertheless move investments from one part of the world to another according to the potential for profit. He or she may espouse a particular set of beliefs or principles - for freedom or democracy; against communism - but this will not stop him or her trading with or investing in South Africa, Russia, Chile or Korea, providing the price is right. In other words the capitalist class, in practice, recognises the world for what it is - a global village. Despite national boundaries, different cultures and languages, we are all part of the world system of capitalism whose lifeblood is competition.  The capitalist class recognise the global character of capitalism and despite the competition between individual capitalists or between sections of capital, in the final analysis they act as a class with common interests. Workers would also do well to recognise not only the global character of capitalism but the necessary consequence of that - the common class interest that unites workers wherever they happen to have been born. 

Perhaps then the destructive nationalist rallying cry of “Come on, Scotland" will be replaced by the socialist call of "Workers of the world unite". 



No comments:

Post a Comment