The world belongs to all and to none

The capitalist economy works according to certain economic laws which no government or legislative body can over-ride. So the argument about sovereignty is not really about what the constitution may or may not say. It's about the effective power that a capitalist state can exercise within the capitalist economy. Capitalism has always existed within a framework of competing states, none of which is strong enough to impose its will on all the others. States, as weapons in the hands of rival groups of capitalists, intervene to further the interests of the capitalists that control them. They do this by using state power to set up protected markets, raw materials sources, trade routes and investment outlets. In normal times their weapons are tariffs, taxes, quotas, export rebates and other economic measures. When they judge that their vital interest is at stake their weapons are . . . weapons. They go to war. The extent to which a capitalist state can distort the world market in favour of its capitalists depends both on its industrial strength and on the amount of armed force at its disposal. This is why all states are under pressure to acquire the most up-to-date and destructive armaments that they can afford. In the jungle world of capitalism, might is right. "Sovereignty"—the margin of independent decision-making that a state has—also depends on might. Over the years capitalism has become more and more international, more and more globalised. This has tended to reduce the margin of maneuver open to states, i.e. has reduced their "sovereignty". 


The sovereignty argument is really an argument within the capitalist class as to whether they should give up some of the might of their state to be able to benefit from the greater might of a larger grouping.  Those who voted Brexit believe that a capitalist Britain would be better off going it alone.  But Theresa May realises that Britain can't really go it alone, but has to be associated with some larger grouping. Now their argument is about which this should be: America or Asia or the Commonwealth rather than the EU. As socialists, we don't take sides in this inter-capitalist argument. Let the capitalist class and their parties and supporters settle the matter for themselves. A siege economy is no way out of the global capitalist crisis. In fact, there is no way out for workers other than socialism which, because capitalism is already a global system, has to be world-wide too. In the meantime, we continue to campaign for the establishment of a world society without nations or borders and where the resources of the Earth are used to produce the things we need to live and to enjoy life for us to take directly. Our objective is a world community based on common ownership and democratic control of the world's resources with production to satisfy people's needs, not profit.


In practice, national sovereignty has been deeply undermined – first of all, by the emergence of a global economy dominated by huge transnational corporations. International financial institutions such as the World Trade Organization and IMF have largely taken over economic policy making. Indebtedness leaves many states with merely the formal husk of independence. Some groups of states have “pooled” part of their sovereignty in supranational regional institutions. The prime example is the European Union.  The fragmentation of states is a natural corollary of the globalisation of capital. From the point of view of the transnational corporations, states no longer have important policy-making functions. It is enough if they enforce property rights and maintain basic infrastructure in areas important for business. Small states can do these jobs as well as large ones. In fact, they have definite advantages. They are more easily controlled, less likely to develop the will or capacity to challenge the prerogatives of global capital.


Global versus national capitalism has emerged as an important divide in world politics. This divide exists, first of all, within the capitalist class of individual countries. Thus, even in the US, the citadel of globalisation, some capitalists such as Trump supporters are oriented toward the home market and favour national capitalism. And in Russia some capitalists support globalisation. The pattern of political forces differs from country to country.


Being against capitalist globalisation is not the same as being against capitalism in general. We have ample past experience of a world of competing national capitalisms – quite enough to demonstrate that there is no good reason for preferring such a world to a world under the sway of global capital. The main problem with the movement against globalisation is that it can be mobilized so easily in the interests of national capital, whatever the intentions of its supporters.  Socialism is an alternative form of globalisation – a globalisation of human community that abolishes capital.

Have you ever mailed a letter from part of the world to another and wondered how from a pillar-box in the street to the letter-box of a house in another continent, it gets there?

Have you ever flown from one part of the world to another and wondered about all that air-space you pass through which requires air traffic control to permit a safe journey?

Or how WHO and FAO can mobilise all these NGOs to combat epidemics and famines.

Have you never ever requested a book from your library who then borrow it from another library to provide it to you?

World co-operation already exists in many areas of our life and we are awash with international organisations and professional bodies and business/trade associations that co-ordinate and keep one another informed of facts and developments. 

As often explained when we establish socialism, it is not a blank page beginning but building upon what already exists in a myriad of forms. We take what exists and transform them, sometimes this will be a very minimal change that is required, while in other cases it will need more fundamental adaptations.  Every army in the world has an engineering corps equipped with all sorts of heavy construction equipment and with trained personnel, capable of laying bridges, building roads and runways, constructing barracks and bases, every army has a transport corps to support supplies and logistics, every army has a medical corp and signals corps capable of creating communication across wildernesses - why should they be made redundant and not deployed for peaceful means.

People are becoming increasingly aware that national sovereignty in regards to global problems such as climate change is meaningless. They will charge their local and regional organisations that have grown into the expression of their wishes with the task to co-ordinate and co-operate with all others of like mind well in advance of the revolutionary moment of assuming political power. So the real beginning is the creation of the One Big Union, the One Socialist Party out of the 200 odd workers organisations in each country and from that to their world-wide restructuring...industrial workers of the world and the world socialist party. Workers across the world experience poverty and violence to some extent on a daily basis – it is the common bond that transcends national boundaries. This feature of our class-based society, an inevitable result of the social relation of the worker to capital. The principles underlying socialism, whilst not offering an immediate panacea, do address all the issues of the rights of all individuals, “by the conversion into the common property of society the means of production and distribution and their democratic control by the whole people.” Unlike the UN and numerous international agreements, multilateral accords and protocols which are repeatedly undermined by one or more powerful states consistently overruling decisions and agreements, the ethic of socialism is rooted in the people.