We Are One

Today's dire threats do not arise out of nowhere. They have a cause. Too many of our fellow-workers are naive enough to believe that capitalism can and should be fixed. "Identity politics" is essentially seeking a better deal for women, LGBT and blacks within capitalism and we suggest this is a divisive form of politics to practice.

The Socialist Party has always held that socialism will mean ‘the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex’. In other words, that it will end all oppression and discrimination based on nationality, ethnicity, gender or sexual orientation. Such discrimination divides the class of wage and salary workers whereas socialism can only be achieved when workers unite to bring it about. We are opposed to ‘identity politics’ as this, too, divides the working class. We still see socialism as the outcome of the class struggle of the working class (in the broad sense) pursuing its interest for a better material life and a better quality of life. We don’t know what will spark off the mass movement for socialism but concern for the environment could be a factor. In any event, as capitalism and its pursuit of profit is the cause of damage to the environment, the aim of the environmentalist movement can only be achieved in socialist society; at some point, they may come to realise this.  

The change of arguments from class politics to ‘identity politics’ is welcomed by the authorities who prefer divide and rule to class unity. Minority groups are urged to identify themselves politically as such and to campaign to get gains and concessions only for themselves. Previously, revolutionaries and even reformists had talked in terms of getting a benefit for the whole wage and salary working class, irrespective of their ethnic origin, gender, language, religion, sexual orientation or whatever. This class approach is now being abandoned (though not by us) and reformists and liberals have turned to protecting ‘identity’ groups that are subject to prejudice and discrimination, seeing the setting up of ‘safe spaces’ from which the expression of views offensive to them are banned as one way to do this. But the question remains: which is the best way to deal with people who hold racist or other prejudiced views? Is it to ban them from expressing them? Or is it to confront them in open debate and refute their views and expose them as dangerous? The Socialist Party see no reason to change our position of favouring the second approach.

The social solidarity of community feeling is the common inheritance of all mankind. But being a powerful social force it has lent itself to exploitation. Therefore with the development of class rule, this great impulse is made subordinate to the class interests of the rulers. It becomes debased and perverted to definite anti-social ends. As soon as the people become a slave class “the land of their fathers” is theirs no more. Patriotism to them becomes a fraudulent thing. The “country” is that of their masters alone. Nevertheless, the instinct of loyalty to the community is too deep-seated to be eradicated so easily, and it becomes a deadly weapon in the hands of the rulers against the people themselves. Only socialism will liberate human brotherhood and sisterhood from the narrow confines of nationality and patriotism. These sentiments will then be remembered only as artificial restrictions of mankind's sympathy and mutual help; as obstacles to the expansion of the human mind; as impediments to the needful and helpful development of human unity and co-operation; as bonds that bound men and women to slavery; as incentives that set people at each others' throats. Despite its shameless perversion by a robber class the great impulse to human solidarity is by no means dead.  Even the hellish system of individualism, with its doctrine of every man for himself and the devil, take the hindmost, has been unable to kill it. Ours is the last great struggle for the liberation of humanity from wage slavery, the great principle of human solidarity will come to full fruition and win its supreme historical battle.

The Socialist Party has always maintained that the Labour and social-democratic parties were useless for the purpose of introducing socialism. We saw that their reformist programmes would permit them to enact measures of reform and no more and that to enact their puny reforms these parties would be forced to cooperate openly with capitalist governments, or would have to form governments themselves. In either case, they would be involved in the administration of the capitalist system.

We saw further that the voters and members behind these parties lacked political knowledge and were befogged by pro-capitalist illusions, such as the necessity for leaders, the impartiality of the State, the permanency of the wages system, etc., in short, the boasted strength of these parties was but a sign of their fatal weakness. Since their massive support was fugitive in nature it could only be kept by pandering to the backwardness and the prejudices of the supporters; thus the progress in numbers was but the building up of political inertia. An inertia that could not be overcome by brilliant or forceful leadership, since the leaders that would be permitted to rise would be precisely those who most faithfully corresponded to the needs of these backward masses. From the very foundation of our Party, we were able to demonstrate that unenlightened, reform-seeking masses were unfitted for the revolutionary act of abolishing the capitalist system. Insight, determination and the strength to take responsibility are exactly the qualities that our class needs in order to emancipate itself, and it is only on the basis of socialist consciousness that such qualities can arise. Hence our insistence on the need for understanding.