The Fetish of the Flag

 

The whole world is in a crisis. Everywhere society is in chaos and ferment. Unemployment and hunger; recessions and war are shaking up the thinking of millions of  workers and impelling them on the road of struggle against the system which oppresses them and drives them toward catastrophe. Socialism is our only hope. Marxism is the science of human society which supplies the key to the development of social existence, past and present, and projects the direction in which it is moving – must move if it is to survive. It is the theory and practice of working class action, of social revolution.

In small communities the principle of all for each and each for all is not entirely lost. There was a time when the regions of  Britain were separate political entities. Even today the distinction between these districts are embodied in sport in which, Geordies, Scousers, Mancunians, Londoners and so on  respectively boast of their football, rugby or cricket virtues. The Socialist Party confidently hold that such trivial rivalries and differences will be reflected in the future when the dividing lines between existing nation-states in a world commonwealth disappear. The cause of the working class is lost if they allow itself to be caught  permanently in the snare of nationalism. The sentiment of “My country right or wrong” will be seen for the abomination that it is. If it is possible to love a city, a nation then surely our love can be spread wider to humanity itself. The perpetuation of hatred of foreigners based on distinction of nationality is  obviously  subservient the selfish interests of the profit-makers of those rival countries and by no means of the peoples. The Socialist Party embraces all humanity. Revolutionary socialists  will have neither to keep its ancient national identities nor to constitute new ones because by becoming free the whole world will be its home. We are convinced that separate countries have had their time.

Socialism groups people, poor against rich, working class against the capitalist class, without taking into account the differences of race and language, and especially the artificial frontiers created by accidents of history. The Socialist Party will not fight to defend existing countries nor to bring new ones into being but we will fight if we need to bring about socialism or to defend it as soon as we have succeeded in establishing it. The class war is the only war which brings some real hope to the exploited of all countries. The class-conscious proletariat, in its fight against the employer class, still more the Socialist Party cannot consistently hold an attitude of loyalty to  ones own capitalist State to the detriment or disparagement of other peoples. If there is one doctrine fundamental to socialism it is that of the class struggle as supersedes the national struggle. We are patriots for mankind as a whole, but not for any particular section of mankind.

Patriotism consists in giving loyalty without considering right or wrong. “Love of country” becomes unquestioning obedience to the country’s government. Patriotism is particularly dangerous because it both isolates and confuses us. Patriots feel good about themselves. It fills something missing in their life. People have a need for community. The churches used to offer it. Sports stadiums have turned into cathedrals and music festivals have become a substitute to the religious jamboree. However, sectional devotion to a more or less mongrel population, even if they all speak varying dialects of the same language, is cant and humbug. The bulk of the population of Britain is as unknown to me as the population of Outer Mongolia.

Workers cannot espouse a narrow nationalist attitude. What happens to the workers in one country has its effect on workers elsewhere and is the concern of socialists everywhere.

Dealing with the realities of life

 

Poverty, unemployment, bad housing, crime, and the host of other evil social phenomena that continually haunt us all have their groups of “do-gooders” spending time, money and effort vainly trying to stem the flood of misery or effect reforms, but these evils remain. As workers, ever close to the miseries which shock our reformers, and socialists, knowing full well the reason for such miseries. Capitalism is the basic social cause of all these evils; that which the reformers of this world struggle against are but the effects.

 Even the reformers have been forced to concede that only dismal results have been so far achieved in the fight against widespread deeply entrenched misery. They fight shadows, the Socialist Party prefers to get to grips with substance. we know that there is only one truly effective “reform," and that is socialism.

Capitalism, with its private ownership of the machinery of wealth production, forces on the mass of people a condition of slavery, wage-slavery. All the things necessary to the sustenance of human life become commodities, their use value only incidental to their exchange value. Even our physical energies—our labour power—has a commodity character which, since we are propertyless, we are obliged to sell to the owners of the factories, mills, land, etc., in order to get the wherewithal to buy the things we need.

It is a staggering thought that even the humble loaf of bread—the stuff of life to the masses—is not produced, under our present social system, primarily for the purpose of being eaten. If you have the money you can buy all the bread you want, and there is no law to prevent you burning it should you so desire? On the other hand, if you are without money and starving you will go without bread.

Socialism can only be majority action—Democracy.

Socialism is an attempt then to show the prime causal factors in the evolution of human society. Men and women make history and socialists contend and what some have made, others can understand. In this way, history becomes an intelligible process and the past is capable of being reconstructed by the same pattern of enquiry which marks other fields of scientific investigation. Marx’s views on history were sharp and clear. Human effort and struggle he held were the means which brought about the historically determined. He never sought to make history a mystery. Indeed he claimed that history had no greater reality than that which could be discovered by the analysis of actual historical events. While unlike Hegel he never believed that history was the outcome of logic and reason, he nevertheless believed that it could be rationally explained. Marx had then a view point on history. He did not believe it could be explained by abstractions like power drives or impulses. Nor it might be added by spirit, nature or some economic first cause. For Marx history had no purpose which was not the purpose of man. No goals which are not human goals. It is men who will to do things. But what men will is always connected with elements in the social situation which are unwilled. Because society is a continuous process, men always find themselves in a set of conditions which is given. It is these conditions which give the scope and set the stamp on particular social aims and goals. When and whether they will be effectively realised will depend upon the objective possibilities within the social situation. Socialism must be willed by men but it is not until a particular set of social relations namely capitalism, appear, can there arise the objective means for socialism to be realised. Marx’s theory of historic causation explains then why men in different historic phases seek to achieve certain ends and what have been the nature of the circumstances which have allowed them to succeed —or fail. Critics of Marx have seized upon the term “objective” conditions, isolated it from its context and then accused Marx of propounding a prime mover on economic first cause which propel men along some predetermined path. The whole purpose of Marx’s teaching was that only by understanding capitalism and acting upon that understanding would we be effective in changing it to something better.

Capitalism provides us with hungry millions, surely a reason for unrelenting work, and at the same time with armies of unemployed; capitalism gives us our slums for there is little profit in providing homes for the slaves of the system; capitalism, with its need to protect its foreign investments, gives us wars and their attendant evils. Even if it were feasible to attack the problems of capitalism singly for the purpose of piecemeal reform, which, of course, it is not, it would be an odious task indeed, placing them in their evil perspective. While you fight slums, war creeps nearer, while you organise peace pledges, slums go unattended, while you are re-habilitating the refugees their compatriots are creating refugees, and so on.

There are no short cuts to socialism and certainly trying to patch up a bankrupt social system is not progressing. If all those people who are genuinely desirous of putting an end to the evils they see around them actively joined with the World Socialist Movement, they would put an end to their objection that socialism is a long way off.

In socialism, no individual will be dependent on another individual for his or her means of sustenance, but every man, woman and child will be the responsibility of the whole community.

Scottish Racism

 

A report into racism in Scottish cricket has been described as “the most devastating verdict to be delivered on any sporting institution in the United Kingdom” and as “a wake-up call for all of Scottish sport”.

The authors detailed 448 examples of institutional racism at Cricket Scotland and concluded that of 31 indicators of good practice, the organisation failed to meet 29 and fully satisfied none. 31 allegations of racism against 15 different people, two clubs and one regional association have been referred for continued investigation. Some allegations have been shared with Police Scotland as potential hate crimes, and others may be referred to the police in future. In addition, many participants who had “clearly witnessed or experienced racism” have chosen not to proceed with the process.

The report found that not only was Cricket Scotland not trusted to manage allegations of racism effectively, several allegations “had not been investigated at all”. 

Some of those who raised concerns had been victimised or forced out of the organisation completely. One volunteer within the Western District Cricket Union – whose area covers half the population of Scotland, and who the report also recommends should be placed in special measures – said “it was very difficult to work in West Scotland and not witness racism”.

The entire board of Cricket Scotland resigned on Sunday in advance of the report’s publication and released a joint statement apologising “to everyone who has experienced racism, or any other form of discrimination, in cricket in Scotland”. 

But Aamer Anwar, the lawyer who represents Majid Haq and Qasim Sheikh, the two former internationals whose descriptions of the discrimination they experienced during their playing careers prompted the report, said the apology was “too little and too late” and that the board’s resignation was “the cowardly option, meaning that today there is nobody to answer for their failure of leadership”.

Majid Haq is Scotland’s all-time leading wicket-taker and made 209 appearances, and after he made an allegation of discrimination during the 2015 World Cup he was sent home and never picked again. Qasim Sheikh was also not picked again, aged 27, after in 2012 publicly questioning why he was not being selected for the national team.

“It should never be normal for a young person to be made to feel worthless, to be dehumanised in a sport they love, to be brainwashed into thinking it’s their fault,” said Anwar, “but that sadly is the brutal story of hundreds of young people of colour who played cricket in Scotland.”

In addition to prejudice on the grounds of race, gender, religion and nationality, the report’s authors also found grounds for “concern over the perceived bias towards the recruitment of players from public schools over state schools”. Opaque selection processes for national teams at all levels were a constant issue, while the board of Cricket Scotland is described as being “only concerned about the men’s national squad and no interest or oversight on any other part of cricket”

‘Devastating’: Cricket Scotland faces special measures after racism report | Scotland Cricket Team | The Guardian

Post-Capitalism (video)

 

Nationalism, a Menace to Socialism

 The typical liberal seeks to give the rights of self-determination to all the various nationalities. The Socialist Party denies the necessity of the existence of nations; it wants to abolish all countries and states. However, we do understand the attachment to hearth and home, to one's community and neighbourhood, to familiar traditions and customs. As a socialist, we love our land. But we also love other people’s lands, too, when we visit them.

The liberation aimed at by the Socialist Party is freedom of development for the individual as for society. This liberty the Socialist Party sees to be impossible under a regime of private property-holding in the means of production. All the existing limitations on freedom, alike for the individual and for society, the Socialist Party finds traceable to the system of private ownership in these means of production. Starting from the fundamental basis of socialism, that the common ownership of the means of production is essential to human liberty, it is right to assume the collectivist basis of socialism, is, indeed, only a means whereby such liberty can be realised. The policy of the Socialist Party is subservient to this goal.

It is capitalism that attacks and destroys all the things close to the human heart. Capitalism ruthlessly discards people’s heritage and ideas opposed to its progress It exploits and corrupts those customs and practices once held sacred. This country is not "our" country.

 

Nationalism involves the doctrine of “My country right or wrong” which the Socialist Party contends is utterly incompatible with world socialism. Socialist principles and socialist interests take precedence over all national interests whatsoever. Socialists cannot recognise any duty, of whatever nature, that is at variance with these principles. Patriotism is an objectionable sentiment since it means the placing of one’s own country, its interests and well-being, above those of the rest of humanity. Patriotism is ridiculous for propertyless proletarians. We all know what patriotism means nowadays. A gang of thieves who by fraud or otherwise lay hold of the power of the State, and with that power in their hands proceed to start a quarrel with another people, whom they consider sufficiently weak and defenceless to be a safe prey, in order to enrich themselves and the class they represent by the plunder and enslavement of the people.  A citizen must on no account condemn their actions or reveals oneself lacking in “patriotism” and like a true “patriot,” must cheer them on.  Patriots see in their “country’s enemies”  any unfortunate people whom its governing and parasitic classes wish to plunder. A patriot nowadays is either an empty-headed knave or an unthinking fool.

Nationalism first appeared during the rise of capitalism, in the struggle of the nascent capitalist class to establish the nation-state as a framework for the expansion of private property, freedom of enterprise and trade.  The nation did not come into being because of mystical or cultural impulses; it was the product of a definite process of economic and class development. Nationalism is based on mythical history. While race and language have been convenient expressions of the nation, the nation has itself created “race” and “language,” and often suppressed or amalgamated them in the fulfilment of its historic mission.

It is undeniable that the attitude of the Socialist Party’s internationalism joins hands with that of anti-patriotism, with that of anti-nationalism. The consistent socialist certainly does relegate nationality to a place secondary to that of Humanity. All socialists have an abhorrence of the cant of the patriot and the lying humbug of the Jingoism which would attempt to whitewash every crime committed in the name of their country.

The national struggle is a diversion from the class struggle. It is proper to look forward to the day when nationalism and patriotism shall be swallowed up in worldwide brotherhood and when supposed differences shall vanish in human solidarity.

No person is duty-bound to fight or sacrifice oneself in defending from attack his or her country. The political independence of a nation is not worth the degradation. Let us cast off all sectionalism, all parochialism, and sit down as brothers and sisters together in an earnest effort to find a common cause against the capitalist enemy. The class struggle is the supreme issue for the Socialist Party. No socialist would suggest for a single moment that a mere change from a foreign to a native-born capitalist would help the workers. Socialists adopt a policy of unrelenting antagonism toward nationalism. We find nothing inspirational in the thought that we are wage slaves of one government than another rival one. Hasten the day when the working people of the world will finally abandon the national flags of their masters, and muster themselves under the red flag of socialism for human brotherhood. The Socialist Party regrets that all the dedication and devotion to the service of the modern nation-state is not forthcoming when it is a question of a new society, for the Socialist Cooperative Commonwealth.

What If?

 

The members of the Socialist Party are the party and their collective will is what guides it. The Socialist Party is organised and run from the bottom up. There is no Party boss or central committee leaders and there never can be unless the Socialist Party abandons its principles and ceases to be socialist. Each member has not only an equal voice but is urged to take a role in all the party’s activities and administration. The Socialist Party relies wholly upon the power of education, knowledge, and mutual understanding. It buys no votes with election promises.

Socialism can only come when enough workers want it. Do not resign yourself to the fate that the world as it is cannot be changed. It can be changed. You can most certainly play a part in changing it. First you must understand what needs changing and how to change it The problems we face all arise from the fact that the means of producing goods and services of all kinds are in the hands of the employers. Because of this profit is society's motive force instead of needs; because of this the struggle for oil and markets, etc., exists, which leads to wars. To send socialists (not reformers) to Parliament backed by understanding for the one object of making these means of living the common property of all  is the only answer. This means no wages, no money, no market, profits or wars, but world-wide cooperation to produce enough and happiness for everyone. The working class now runs industry to its own misery for the profit of its oppressors, but the day is near when it should take those industries that have been built up with its blood and sweat and transform them from means of profit for a handful of parasites into the means of its deliverance from slavery and degradation.

The more the minds of workers are lulled with mystical views the less clear the thinking they can do about their fundamental problems. The worst of the matter is that people derive a temporary relief from putting these problems behind them as insoluble or accepting them as inevitable. In this they are like the early Christians who gave up hope of improvement in their earthly life and despairingly accepted their miseries without resistance, treating them as scourges on the path to paradise. The problems of the workers, endless toil, poverty and insecurity, are neither inevitable nor insoluble. They are the product of the economic conditions of today just as the problems of the chattel slave and the serf were the product of the economic conditions of the times in which they lived. In fact, the fetters that bind the producer are a heritage from the dawn of civilisation, when a portion of mankind grabbed a privileged position and forced others to do the work.

The means shape the ends: means are ends. A policy based on the idea that the position of servitude of the working class can be gradually abolished by reforming the relation of wage-labour and capital cannot produce the abolition of wage labour and capital. A policy which allows for co-operation with avowed anti-socialist parties cannot lead to the establishment of socialism. The nature of a government is not determined by the name which it takes or which it may be given. In so far as we are discussing the question of capitalism and socialism the nature of the government is determined by the mode of production and distribution in being during its time of administration. The only solution to working-class troubles is to be found in the establishment of a socialist system of society.

Marxists do not regard the state as part of some eternal dispensation. It can be shown that the state is a historical product and, like all other social institutions, it has an origin and growth. Marxists point out that there have been societies without states, hence society is both logically and historically prior to the state institution. The state as an organised coercive agency does not in fact emerge until the break up of early tribalism, with its basic egalitarianism, which was brought about by the development of private property relations and its concomitant privileged and unprivileged social classes.

With the division of the community into owners and non-owners of the sources of wealth production, the state as a social power becomes the means of ensuring the continuance of this division against disruption from within, as the result of social conflicts engendered by antagonistic class relations of production and enemies from without. The state thus serves to guarantee the legal titles of those who own the means of production and gives them the right to appropriate the labour of others, be they slaves, serfs or wage workers. In the ultimate instance these legal relations can receive a physical sanction by the control of the state over the armed forces. Thus any class which is the dominant class in a given set of private property relations of production must have direct or indirect access to the state apparatus.

When Marxists say that the state is the protector of private property, they mean that it guarantees the class interests of a given set of property relations. But the significance of these property relations do not consist in the mere ownership of things like the possession of a pair of trousers or the tools of an independent craftsman. Capitalist private property relations means a social relation between men, a relation between owners of the means of production and non-owners. The social relations of production of capitalism are linked then with a definite class interest which confers upon those who own the wealth resources the right over the disposal of the labour of others. And it is to maintain and enforce these social relations of production that constitutes the primary function of the state.

Marxists point out that class social systems, with their corresponding state structure, are the outcome of social development. They have come and gone, and there are good historical reasons for stating that capitalism, which is the latest of such systems, will also be the last and in turn will give way to a class-free and hence state-free social organisation.

Reformists accept the fact of the class structure of capitalist society, but they do so on different grounds to Marxists. For them, social classes and state organisation have always existed and always will. That is why Labour propaganda, although it at times makes veiled references to the injustices of a class society, never advocates the abolition of classes. For them, capitalism is part of an eternal dispensation. Their theory is then unhistorical and uncritical.

If, according to such a view, there must always be a class differentiation in the social structure, what purpose does the state serve? Their answer is that the function of the state is to minimise the conflict between the classes to the greatest possible extent, in order to maximise social harmony. On such an assumption the state is not a class organ but a classless agency which exists to reconcile divergent economic interests for the greatest common good. Translated into actual political practice, it is the class collaboration theory of the old political parties, whereby the state serves as a means of seeking to blunt class antagonisms. Accepting as they did the contest between Capital and Labour as a social norm, they claimed that they would see it was fought under the Marquis of Queensbury rules. Whatever changes the reformists envisage in capitalism, it always unchangingly assumes capital in eternal control. Something for which the capitalist class no doubt feel eternally grateful.