Scottish Independence or Unite and Fight

Posted on by
1
workers of the world unite

workers of the world unite

More on Britain …

Scottish Independence or Unite and Fight

I hope it doesn’t sound hypocritical for someone who has nothing but the utmost contempt for the system of bourgeois Parliamentary ‘democracy’ but it was good to hear that the idea of Scottish Independence had been kicked out by the Scottish people in the referendum of 18th September 2014.

Nationalism without Socialism is on the road to fascism. The argument that people are as one merely because they happen to inhabit a small piece of land takes us back to the thinking of hunter gatherers, desperate to protect their source of food. At its core nationalism asks, and expects, people of a particular country to ignore the fundamental contradiction that exists everywhere, and that’s the question of who is in really in control of the country, that is, which class actually rules.

It comes as no surprise that the matter of class never came up in the debates and discussions that preceded the vote. On either side. Scottish nationalism had its roots in petty bourgeois aspirations of being big fish in a little pond and certainly didn’t arise as a groundswell of working class opposition to ‘rule from Westminster’.

Those arguing for independence ignored any differences between those living in millionaire mansions and the people living in the schemes that surround cities like Glasgow, council housing estates with some of the worse conditions in Europe. As far as the nationalists are concerned their ‘Scottishness’ unites all, the laird in his palace and the homeless on the freezing streets of many Scottish towns.

Those opposing independence made a similar argument only on a slightly bigger scale. For them the rich and the poor of ALL the United Kingdom should be as one. This is no surprise when the British people have allowed to be elected a government which has more millionaires in positions of power than at any time since the 19th century.

An aspect of parliamentary ‘democracy’ which is always there in the background was highlighted during the run up to the referendum of the 18th. That is, the system basically depends upon bribes. If those supporting independence did so because they believed in some sort of Scottishness – whatever that might be – or an identity that comes from having been born, or living, in a particular place, at least they’re attempting to base their ideas on a principle. However, what the argument came down to, on both sides, was which one could offer the most cash in hand.

The nationalists put forward the idea, which they have tried to use as their best card for decades, that revenue from North Sea oil could all be kept for the 6 million or so people in the island of Britain which was closest to the oil fields. Now that argument in itself just displays the petty mindedness and selfish attitude of nationalism. An extension of this would mean that the only people who have the right to the riches from the world’s resources are those who live over them and we would then head back to a situation of city states.

An extension of this could mean that the Welsh would control the water resources in their hills and hold the rest of Britain to ransom – after all if recent wars have been fought over oil the wars in the future are more than likely to be fought over water. This is merely a return to a situation that existed during the early days of agriculture and clashes between tribes, a situation which still exists in some parts of the world (it should be remembered that one of the roots of sharia law is related to control of water resources). If the people in the Lake District took umbrage at the Mancunians they could cut off the water supply at Thirlmere. These sort of attitudes are tribal in the worst sense of the word and deny, and challenge, any developments that have been made in the past of our social being.

And where in the world, at any time in the past, has the working population really gained from the exploitation of such valuable resources? The lion’s share goes in profits to the mineral companies, a little bit gets into the coffers of the treasury by way of minimal tax, but never has it been a windfall for the people. In some of the Arab countries with tiny indigenous populations there are many people with millions but that’s at the expense of almost slave conditions for immigrant labour which do the work so that these parasites live in luxury. Even in Venezuela, with the much hyped policy of Chavez, only a trickle really came down to the poor of the country. Are we really supposed to accept that the situation would be any different in Scotland in the event of independence?

Added to that, if the referendum had gone the other way, what sort of ‘independence’ would it have been anyway. The nationalists wanted: to keep the pound sterling – even though no one in the Westminster Parliament said they could; keep the Queen – there would have been a conflict here on the National Anthem. The current national song of Scotland is bordering on a xenophobic rant, with lines that refer to the defeat of an English army in 1314. As, in theory (but only in theory as the royal line in Britain has been broken many times and some substitute found in another country) the present Queen is descended from the feudal upstart of the 14th century that would have made for awkward moments on State visits; stay in the European Union – although even the EU seemed reluctant to take them in, without the country first going through a long drawn out procedure for new members, and Spain (even though it said otherwise) would have done their utmost to prevent such a precedent with Catalonia and the Basque Country wanting similar.

Now the vote has been lost the nationalists are already saying that it really wasn’t important for the people ‘to have their say’ as they will try to establish independence through other means, thereby ignoring the wishes of the majority of the country in a referendum that was pushed for by these very nationalists. If they had won they would have argued that the decision had been made and should stand forever, as they have lost they look for ways to circumvent the ‘democratic choice’. I have no problem them rejecting such a choice but at least bring with it some consistency.

Another aspect of recent bourgeois elections was also demonstrated a few days after the defeat for the nationalists – the leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) resigned. This personalisation of politics has been going on for sometime now, not just in the UK. I believe there are two reasons for such ‘self-sacrifice’. First it perpetuates the ‘cult of the personality’ (of nonentities) in the political environment where individuals are more important than the collective. And, secondly, it attempts to deflect criticism away from the ideas and policies by giving the impression that it was the individual who failed, not that the group which was peddling failed policies.

Unfortunately the decision of the 18th hasn’t confined the issue to the dustbin of history. Because the minority of one of the small constituent parts of the United Kingdom had a hissy fit over independence now the majority of that population who had, and still have, little wish for such moves are having unforeseen changes forced upon them.

During the whole of this process, that seems to have gone on forever, the one part of the UK that has a valid claim for independence has been completely forgotten. Since the time of the Norman invasion the Irish have been fighting against the British (the Scots spent much of that period fighting FOR the British in its colonial and expansionist wars). That struggle was, and still is, deep-rooted in the Irish identity.

But on top of all the tragedies that Ireland has had to suffer under the British yoke for centuries they now have to deal with betrayal of the present day Sinn Fein and Irish Republican Army (IRA) who have turned their back on the leadership of the past, of the likes of Robert Emmet and James Connolly, and are now seen kowtowing to the British monarch.

Such diversions deflect people from looking at the picture as a whole and in that respect Scottish Nationalism has played a pivotal role in perpetuating and maintaining the divisions between the working class of Britain (already having to deal with racism, membership of the European Union, a seemingly endless stream of wars in the Middle East, and a lack of long-term perspective). It would be good to think that now Scottish Independence has been decidedly thrown out in a ‘democratic’ vote the workers of Britain would unite and fight together for a common goal. Unfortunately, at the moment, we are still some way from seeing that reach fruition.

More on Britain …

4th August – Centenary of the start of the First World War

Posted on by
Reply
The Western Front

The Western Front

More on the ‘Revolutionary Year’

4th August – Centenary of the start of the First World War

It’s a sign of the redundancy of capitalism when nations consider they need to commemorate the centenary of the BEGINNING of such a war as that which devastated Europe between 1914 and 1918. It’s even more of a condemnation of that social system when that celebration is spread over the whole year. Such is the situation surrounding the 4th August – centenary of the First World War.

At the same time we shouldn’t be surprised that politicians of all hues try to jump on the band wagon of sympathy that the population holds for those who had to face the horrors of the trenches – and for a war that the British ‘won’. However it’s sad that working people aren’t able to see through the cynical manipulation of their emotions by such politicians who are always looking for ways to advance their own agenda.

And to re-write history.

The coverage on the events for the three weeks leading up to the date of the declaration of war have attempted to give the impression that Europe was at peace for years prior to 1914 and it was the random act of a Serbian nationalist in killing a member of the Hapsburg imperial family that moved things on which got out of hand.

In Britain the huge number of programmes on the radio and television, the slew of books that have been published as different authors also seek to feed at the trough have, in the main, ignored the fact that Europe had been moving inexorably towards a major conflict as the only way to resolve the issue of which country was going to hold sway on the continent. In that struggle it would be decided whether the old empires, the Hapsburg, the Russian Tsarist or the Ottoman, or the more aggressive industrial capitalist nations, Britain, Germany or France, would come out on top.

If the contending capitalist/imperialist powers themselves didn’t know that a war was developing in those first years of the 20th century and historians and programme makers a hundred years later aren’t sure, even with the benefit of hindsight, at least organised labour, in the form of the Second International were very clear of where the world was going unless socialists and trade unionists took matters into their own hands to stop it.

At two important international congresses, at Stuttgart in August 1907 and at Basle in November 1912, organised labour declared unanimously that it would do all in its power to prevent a war from breaking out and would work for its earliest termination if such a war was to start. Now it’s possible to say that the members of the Second International over-estimated their influence in their respective countries, that they didn’t have the power they thought they had in the major industrial countries and were therefore not strong enough to prevent the four years of carnage.

The matter that definitely does have a bearing on the start of the war was the fact that when it came to actually putting into practice the fine words and sentiments of the two congresses:

‘ … the working class, which provides most of the soldiers and makes most of the material sacrifices, is a natural opponent of war, for war contradicts its aim – the creation of an economic order on a socialist basis for the purpose of bringing about the solidarity of all people.’

‘If war threatens to break out, it is the duty of the working class and of its parliamentary representatives in the countries involved, …. to exert every effort to prevent the outbreak of war by means they consider most effective….

Should war break out nonetheless, it is their duty to intervene in favour of its speedy termination and to do all in their power to utilise the economic and political crisis caused by the war to rouse the peoples and thereby to hasten the abolition of capitalist class rule.’

From the Resolution of the International Socialist Congress at Stuttgart, August 18-24, 1907

‘The Balkan crisis, which has already caused such horrors, would become the most terrible danger to civilisation and the proletariat if it should spread further. At the same time it would be the greatest outrage in all history because of the crying disparity between the magnitude of the catastrophe and the triviality of the interests involved.’

It goes on to say:

‘It is with satisfaction, therefore, the Congress notes that there is complete unanimity among the socialist parties and the trade unions of all countries in the war against war.’

‘The fear of the ruling classes that a world war might be followed by a proletarian revolution has proved to be an essential guarantee of peace.’

‘But the most important task in the International’s activities devolves upon the working class of Germany, France and England.’

‘The proletarians consider it a crime to fire at each other for the benefit of the capitalist profits, the ambitions of dynasties, or the greater glory of secret diplomatic treaties.’

From the Manifesto of the Extraordinary International Socialist Congress, Basel, November 24-25, 1912

The organised labour and socialist movement, dominated by reformists, social democrats and opportunists, proved itself incapable of facing up to the challenge history had placed before them. The overwhelming majority of the reformist ‘leaders’ of the various European socialist parties sided with capitalism and where they had elected representatives in some Parliaments actually voted in favour of finance for the war.

There were a few memorable exceptions to the long list of traitors who find words easy but actions way beyond their abilities.

Of the French Socialists Jean Jaures called for a general strike just two weeks before hostilities broke out. He was rewarded by being assassinated on the 31st July 1914.

Rosa Luxemburg continued her opposition to the war throughout the period of fighting, being imprisoned a number of times for her ‘unpatriotic’ activities. She failed to really understand the meaning of revolution and what it entailed against a ruling class that would stop at no means to prevent their loss of power. For that she paid with her life, being murdered by the nascent German fascists of the Friekorps on the orders of her erstwhile student and ‘comrade’ from the German Social Democratic Party, Frederick Ebert. This close working connection between social democracy and fascism/militarism is something that has continued throughout the last century.

Although not present at either of the International meetings James Connolly, the most significant and clear minded Irish revolutionary to date, was also clear about the true meaning of the war. Commenting on the betrayal of the leaders of the Socialist International, he wrote in Forward (15th August, 1914):

‘What then becomes of all our resolutions; all our protests of fraternisation; all our threats of general strikes; all our carefully built machinery of internationalism; all our hopes for the future?’

In response to pacifism he wrote:

‘A great continental uprising of the working class would stop the war; a universal protest at public meetings would not save a single life from being wantonly slaughtered.’

Unfortunately he was dragged into the badly organised and adventurous petty-bourgeois putsch of the Easter Rising of 1916, the defeat of which allowed British imperialism to kill him with impunity. Ireland lost their greatest leader at a time when someone of his stature was needed to stand up against the narrow-minded nationalists. When the Irish Republicans ‘celebrate’ the centenary of the rising in 2016 the country will be no closer to unity and independence than it was a hundred years before.

The most significant Marxist to consistently oppose the sending of workers to kill workers was Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, the leader of the Russian Bolsheviks. His words, written a few days after the shooting started, gave a clear analysis of what was happening in Europe:

‘The European and world war has the clearly defined character of a bourgeois, imperialist and dynastic war. A struggle for markets and for freedom to loot foreign countries, a striving to suppress the revolutionary movement of the proletariat and democracy in the individual countries, a desire to deceive, disunite, and slaughter the proletarians of all countries by setting the wage slaves of one nation against those of another so as to benefit the bourgeoisie – these are the only real content and significance of the war.’

Lenin Collected Works Vol 21, pp15-16

His leadership and the clarity of the Party allowed them to lead the Russian Revolution of November 1917 and to start the struggle to establish the first workers and peasants state in the Soviet Union.

That revolution was one of the few positive outcomes of the conflict of 1914-18 and the threat that event posed to capital can be seen by the speed at which former enemies came together in the desire to crush the world’s first socialist experiment on a countrywide basis. They weren’t successful in the 1920s but if workers and peasants sometimes relax or give up the fight capitalism never tires and has used and will use everything in its armoury to gain anything it has lost, whatever the cost in terms of lives or resources.

During all the statements that will be made today, the day that Britain declared war on Germany and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, only passing, superficial mention will be made of the fact that what we now known as the First World War was also considered by many to be the ‘war to end all wars’.

Not for the bankers and industrialists who were set to make fortunes out of the suffering of millions; not for the politicians who soon realised the ludicrous nature of the statement soon after it became popular (and which was later paraphrased by such Richard Nixon in reference to the war against the Vietnamese); not for the military hierarchy who would never accept the disappearance of their reason for existence; not for the church (of whatever denomination) as there’s nothing better than the futility of war to try to sell ‘the pie in the sky when you die); but for the ordinary soldier.

Conscripted from the farms, mines and factories of Britain they were thrown into the horror of trench warfare of the western front or the slaughter on the beaches of Gallipoli. They wouldn’t be the same after seeing ‘Paree’ on their return home (if they weren’t destined to remain at places like Tyne Cot outside Passchendaele) and would have been a force to reckon with if they had proper leadership.

Lied to by the ruling class and betrayed by the social democrats the majority of the British population supported the war to the end believing that its successful conclusion (that is, a British victory) would see a new and better society for all. With another lie Lloyd George, in November 1918, churned out another famous phrase of the time: ‘To make Britain a fit country for heroes to live in.’

But what did those ‘heroes’ face.

A country where the Treasury, before 1914 bursting with the plunder of centuries from the ‘Empire’, was now looking for more savings. If not even the crumbs of Empire would fall from the table before the war there was no chance of increases in public spending after. Times of austerity had arrived – anything sound familiar here?

Thousands of men traumatised from their experiences at the front wandered the country in a daze and many gave up altogether. Unemployment increased and wages, hours and conditions of workers worsened. The defeat of the 1926 General Strike encouraged the employers to do as they wished. Then came the Crash of 1929 and its consequences, austerity layered on austerity. Unemployed Marches and the Means Test followed.

‘Salvation’ was another war, even more destructive in terms of human lives and resources. The ‘achievements’ of the conflict of 1939-45 in Britain, the Welfare State, introduced to stave off revolution, were under attack from the start and now there’s no Communist country in the world to pose an alternative the capitalist wolves are out to take back anything (and more) that was taken from them.

The present day social democrats, the Labour Party, vie with the other political parties to see who can be the best servant of capital. Before 1914 their words were brave even though their actions were pusillanimous. Now they are the most ardent and strident war-mongers of the lot.

The hypocrisy of the annual November 11th Remembrance Day parades and speeches has been surpassed today. If we want to truly pay homage to those who went so keenly off to war a hundred years ago we should be declaring an end to all wars and not preparing for the next one, whether it be the never-ending ‘War Against Terror’ or a return to the Cold War.

Today we are in the ludicrous and pitiful situation of commemorating the start of a war, surely that must be a first. We should make sure that in 25 years and one month, the centenary of the start of the Second World War, we have learnt the lessons of the past and realise that unless society is changed fundamentally we will be facing such anniversaries forever.

More on the ‘Revolutionary Year’

Dazzle Ship

Posted on by
Reply
Dazzle Ship Liverpool Biennial 2014

Dazzle Ship Liverpool Biennial 2014

More on Britain …

Dazzle Ship

On each occasion it’s been held (this is the eighth) the Liverpool Biennial of Contemporary Art always tries to have at least one large outdoors installation. In 2014 this is the so-called ‘Dazzle Ship’, a repainted pilot ship based at the Canning Graving Dock, next to the famous Pierhead on the shores of the River Mersey.

The project is the work of the Venezuelan artist Carlos Cruz-Diez and takes its inspiration from the dazzle painting of ships which became common towards the end of the First World War.

There are a few reasons why Cruz-Diez developed this idea for the Liverpool Biennial 2014.

Not surprisingly the original concept for this after the outbreak of war came from contemporary artists at the time. There’s some debate about who actually came up with the original idea, a zoologist, John Graham Kerr, even putting in a bid but the names of Norman Wilkinson and Edward Wadsworth are normally credited with the concept.

The Biennial falls in the same year as the hundredth anniversary of the start of the First World War (I’ll never understand the concept of celebrating the beginning of a war that caused such death and destruction) so funding was available from 14-18 Now – WWI Centenary Art Commissions.

Finally, Liverpool was one of the ports where much of this dazzle painting of ships took place, even down to the fact that the dry dock in which the Edmund Gardner (the pilot ship that has been revamped) now sits was used during the second half of the war.

You tend to hear a lot about such projects long before you see them and I must admit I was a little underwhelmed when I got down to the waterfront to see for myself. First it’s in bright colours – but that’s all right as this is not a reproduction of the scheme used for military purposes but an artistic twist. The problem is the regularity of the use of those colours. It was the irregularity, the uniqueness of the design for each ship, that made the project (which, although never fully proven to be successful in the misnamed ‘Great War’, was used again in Great War Part II) such an innovative one a hundred years ago.

Cruz-Diez has chosen a design which has vertical lines of 4 colours (red, green, black and orange – always in that order) on the hull and vertical lines of red, green, yellow and black on the ships superstructure.

Apart from being commissioned for the Biennial it is also part of a larger project, Monuments from the Future, which ‘invites artists and architects to bring large-scale imaginary monuments from the future into the present. In order to fulfill this paradoxical task, artists will collaborate with professional futurologists (social scientists who predict possible future scenarios) to determine possible future circumstances and set of events for which a new monument can be imagined and produced. This project will slowly turn Liverpool into a sci-fi sculpture park making use of Liverpool’s industrial archaeology to celebrate its possible new futures.’ So that’s something to look out for on the streets of Liverpool in the coming months.

Across the road, in the approach to the Liverpool One shopping complex, the pavement has been painted with similar colours and in a ‘dazzle’ pattern. This is on Thomas Steers Way and is supposed to link the shopping complex with the ship on the other side of the Dock Road. I doubt if one in a hundred of the people who walk along this 100 metres or so of painted walkway have any idea what it’s all about.

I was slightly disappointed by Cruz-Diez’s creation as I would have preferred the lines to have been less predictable, more haphazard, more (dare I say it) dazzling. Investigating the background to the whole dazzle ship project at the beginning of the 20th century I saw a photo of Wadsworth’s 1919 painting of men working on a ship in a dry dock in Liverpool. I thought that quite impressive.

Dazzle-ships in drydock at Liverpool

Dazzle-ships in drydock at Liverpool

Anyway, I was glad I went down to the Albert Dock complex to see the work as I then had the opportunity to visit the inside of the pilot ship itself. Being virtually as it was when launched in 1953 it was instructive as an indication of the class structure that existed within the pilot service at the time of its construction but also well into the 1970s. It was eventually taken out of service in April 1981.

Although the Biennial ends in October this year the Dazzle Ship will stay as it is until the end of 2015, so there’s no mad rush to have a look. The tours of the ship are run by the Merseyside Maritime Museum. These are free and will take place every Thursday till the end of August at 11.00, 12.30 and 14.30. To avoid disappointment it’s best to book on 0151 478 4499.

More on Britain …