Yes or No or Doesnae Matter?

WHO CARES?

In a capitalist enterprise it is always the owner or shareholders who live off the work of others. They are the ones who really hold the power! Lower management and the supervisors are only their watchdogs that apply the rules which the capitalist owners dictate. They “direct” the workers in such a way as to insure as much profit as possible, and when the industry is facing difficulties, they are ones charged with the laying-off, or raising productivity. They are also the personnel who try to create division among the workers as they fight against the union or try to buy off their union representatives.

As masters of the economy, the capitalist controls the state and the mass media. All the big newspapers, radio and television defend them and turn the people’s attention  away from the true problems. ConDems, Labour and the nationalist parties whose interests do they defend? We think you know only too well. If a political party does not want to abolish capitalist exploitation, it can only serve capitalism – and its effective role is the same as that of the foremen and line managers in the factories and offices. All the things that are tied to the state, the laws, the taxation systems, are according to the needs of the capitalist class.

To pretend that the union with England, as the SNP do, is the cause of all the problems is to deliberately fool the people. The disputes among various politicians are only disputes among the managers about the best way to serve their true masters, the owners of capital. The SNP cry out loudly against the parliament in London but that is only done to manipulate the workers better.  If they truly take at heart the interests of the workers, why don’t they denounce the very essence of exploitation, the capitalists system?

Many supporters of independence call themselves “socialists,” but that doesn’t mean anything – these are hollow words. One is not truly a socialist who does not want to abolish the private ownership of the means of production, who does not want to expropriate the capitalists.

Salmond and his cohorts on the Left are pretending to be radicals. They want to rally the working class behind the nationalist cause. But nationalism disarms the workers. Shall we fight only to have Scottish bosses instead of English ones? Shall we unite with these native-born exploiters in order to defend “their” nation against the nasty English? That is pure folly. Nationalism is a vain attempt to rally the working class behind the cause of particular Scottish capitalists, seeking a better place in the sun. Nationalism does not oppose capitalism. Furthermore, it is used to divide the workers among themselves so they can ignore their real enemy. In order to overthrow capitalism , the workers of all the world need to unite – their main interests lie in such unity. We must oppose nationalism.

 These Left nationalists are but the extension of the nationalist employers movement, and their actions serve the interests of this aspiring rising class. There are no shortcuts to the socialist revolution, and those who tread the nationalist path retard the coming of a popular revolutionary movement by making false friends.

Marx and Engels, by saying that “the workers have no country” were only stating a fact. The workers 'have no country' because they must regard the national state as a machinery for their oppression.  Any kind of Scottish state that didn't offer benefit the corporations would see capital flight and a serious drop in its economy -- the Scottish social democratic economy is a myth. First off, do you really believe that the Scottish business class would look after the Scottish working class' interests? Why would they? Because they're both Scottish? If workers and bosses interests are opposed and contradictory, then why would it be in Scottish workers' interests to be ruled by local bosses?

Scottish workers' interests are that of higher wages, shorter hours, better benefits, better social housing etc . All of this is NOT in the boss class' interests as it would cost them money and as such are reluctant to give it up. Gains made by the working classes throughout history have been fought for, not kindly handed down i.e. trade unions, the vote, council housing and so forth. Bosses want the most amount of work for the least amount of money, workers want the least amount of work for the most amount of money. Individual bosses can choose to buck this - can pay above the average rate for a particular skill, can offer better conditions, can choose not to close down a factory to reinvest elsewhere but this is a pressure that exists everywhere within capitalism. The possibility of an individual boss decoupling their actions from their material interests, and ignoring the systemic pressures that dictate the direction the whole moves in cannot prevail in an independent Scottish economy. Scots won't be ruling themselves. Britons do not rule themselves in Britain and the Americans do not rule themselves in America. Who does the ruling, economically and politically everywhere in a capitalist nation-state.? You guess it - capitalists.

Class loyalty is very real in that it comes out of the genuine experiences of workers internationally. Your boss is your boss no matter where they're from and as such their interests are opposite to yours. Your workmate is your workmate no matter where they're from. In fact, a Tesco worker in Hungary is a worker, just the same as an coal miner in South Africa is a worker, just the same as a call-centre worker in Slough is a worker. We all have to work for a wage, and that wage is a fraction of the profit WE produced and the boss took. Only by struggling together, as a class, can we get back more of that profit and take over the running of society completely.

Scotland as a nation is not one monolithic entity. It's a community of diverse communities - based on differing geographical, cultural backgrounds. Recognising that a policy good for Glasgow might be bad for Galashiels. Socialism is all about letting communites make decisions for themselves so why lump all these communities together into an artificial nation state? The reason we seek to organise  a class is because it is not some arbitrary imagined construct like nationalism. It is something we experience the reality of everyday, a relationship we reproduce everyday through our interactions. We share a class position with an Indian call centre workers when we’re employed by the same employer, do the same job and face the same arbitrary rules. Class is not a primordial thing we seek to create unity around but rather a social relationship that already requires our unconcious unity. Whether we like it or not, capital links us to fellow workers all around the globe. Socialists seek to give expression to this situation and to build on it in order to further understand and strengthen our own struggles. Nationalism only serves to mystify our real standing in the world and as such stands in the way of overcoming our alienation.

Socialists are not centralists and we would like to see decisions taken at as local a level as possible - subsidiarity. But under capitalism decision making closer to home doesn't necessarily mean better, but, in fact, with a smaller nation state it can become worse, e.g. prominent personalities become more important, local business-men gain undue influence and nepotism gets worse. If it is true that power corrupts, then it will just as easily corrupt at local levels.