Hitherto philosophers have interpreted the world in  various  ways. The point however is to change it.  Karl Marx
Economic & Philosophic Science Review
[P&P Bulletin Publications, PO Box 50, London SW17 9NL] [Post Office Regd.]
No 917 Tuesday September 9 1997                                                                                                     10p

New Labour devolution gimmick is a fraud against the challenge to capitalism itself by workers in Scotland, Wales and elsewhere. Minor local government reforms, which will change nothing basically about exploitation of workers by the crisis-ridden British imperialist system, are just a peg for a giant reactionary nationalist diversion. Marxist-Leninist science provides the only clear understanding of the national question.

The federation aspects of devolution, and the enthusiasm for it among nationalists, are backward steps which solve nothing.

The minor reform it involves for bourgeois democracy's local government structure is acceptable routine, but which equally solves nothing.

The attempted fuss about devolution is something else entirely, - a giant reformist diversionary gimmick.

Very remotely, it is related to the vague longing to belong to a better society which has been an element in the largescale sick wish to identify with the tragically-destroyed Diana.

People yearn for a new dream or a new icon to cling to, - the legend-spinning business of 20th century capitalism's most powerful propaganda industry, - the Hollywood dream factory (and subsequently television).

National sentimentality and nostalgia is in the same line of illusion.

It is a diversionary gimmick right up Blairism's street. New Labour consists entirely of shallow propaganda stunts, many of which involve the same small amount of superficial reformist tinkering with existing capitalist-system structures.

The whole Blairite public relations exercise breathlessly pretends to offer 'new' this and 'new' that while basically changing nothing about how British imperialism fundamentally goes about its exploitative business with maximum cynicism, humbug, and hypocrisy.

The entire crucial advertising and propaganda industries of capitalism work to death the stale old racket of always promising 'new' this and 'new' that. Blairism is the advertising racket taking over political government as well as the economy.

Confidence in how well Britain is competing in the inter-imperialist trade-war stakes had slumped to an all-time low with the humiliating booting-out of the Tories after 18 years of supposedly 'ruthless, self-help, harsh medicine' had turned into the same old sleaze and incompetence instead of 'transforming Britain'.

With expectations raised sky-high that things might be able to change, the Tories were dumped unceremoniously.

Swept into national office, the Blairites have announced a gimmick a day, fearful of how quickly the electorate will see right through New Labour's empty bluster, and cast them out again for another generation, or even forever.

But the gimmicks are all really not much better than the standard 'Persidaz really will wash whiter'. Inquiry after inquiry has been announced into this, that, and the other. Report after report has been promised. Grandiose millennial claim after grandiose claim is being made that education, health, housing, the environment, transport, etc, 'will be transformed by the year 2001 or 2002', or whatever.

New Labour's enthusiasm for this devolutionary gimmick is every bit as shallow and meaningless. It is just a re-packaging stunt to serve up the same old life under capitalism but pretending to Scotland and Wales, where Thatcherism was dumped more ferociously than anywhere, that it is really something 'new'.

As an extension of bourgeois-democracy local government, it represents a marginal change, about on the scale of the closure of the Greater London Council, as it affected capitalist 'democracy' there, - i.e. not very much, whether the GLC goes or stays.

Why does the GLC in or out, or the Greater Manchester Council in or out, not make much difference to how local life feels under capitalism? Because the capitalist system is still in charge, still governing, as always, 99% of what makes up life for ordinary people.

What difference will such an extension of local government make in Scotland? Not a lot.

And certainly the small difference it will make is not remotely connected with the colossal illusion-mongering campaign being built up around the Devolution question.

New Labour and their wholly reactionary pro-capitalist partners in petty-bourgeois Scots Nationalism and the Liberal Democrats, are all playing up nationalist sentiment and chauvinistic self-delusion for all they are worth.

A 'new deal for Scotland', a 'new way of life for Scotland', are all being generously promised. What utterly and criminally deceitful gobshite.

The nationalist and reformist collaborators with the imperialist system know full well that the rejection of Thatcherism in Scotland and Wales was a profoundly anti-capitalist move.

Ahead of the industrial regions of England (although only slightly), the working people of Scotland and Wales have seen through the reactionary hopelessness of the British ruling class and have declared 'Enough'.

So how can pro-imperialist Labour, SNP, and LibDem get round this problem? Play up the 'devolution is paradise' gimmick.

Much of the devolution sentiment flows from the wish to belong to a better society as a result of British imperialism's long-drawn-out crisis.

In the very long term, local community will clearly be the essential basis of life in a better society where social contribution will be the unquestioned highest good instead of capitalism's morality of 'success' at cut-throat competition.

But it remains highly dubious that trying to promote such community solidarity now under capitalism, especially as a solution to the unending crisis of the British imperialist system, - is anything but a grotesque reformist illusion doing far more harm than good. Greater autonomy, progressive in itself, is here being used to foully trick the people of Scotland and Wales to settle for very minor 'changes' when what they clearly want is a complete challenge to the whole way society works under capitalism.

It remains to be seen how easily bamboozled workers in Scotland and Wales will be by this 'devolution' stunt which leaves imperialist-system exploitation on their backs every bit the same as before.

To the extent that increased nationalist sentiment surrounding the operation satisfies them, the devolution gimmick will have played an entirely reactionary role, - much as might have been expected from a lash-up between New Labour opportunist reformism, petty-bourgeois Scots nationalism, and the slimy class-collaboration of the Lib-Dems.

In view of this, Tory opposition to the devolution proposals is useless as a crude guide to workers that therefore they should vote for it. The pretence that the burdens of imperialist government are worse under the Tories than under Labour has always been an utterly bankrupt thesis.

There is no essential difference. Only a tactical need to expose the worthlessness of particular Labour 'reformist' gimmicks, pretending to 'change capitalism 100%', might ever have been a reason for workers having enthusiastic illusions in having a Labour rather than a Tory government, at different times.

But that hardly applies with Blair's New Labour, which is openly for the international capitalist system as it universally exists in all its essentials.

The only serious stance for workers is to denounce all New Labour's rotten gimmickry, to denounce the nationalist reaction creeping in on New Labour's coat-tails, and to agitate for a Marxist-Leninist understanding of imperialism's desperate crisis, and the disgraceful role being played by reformism in helping prop it up with new gimmick after new gimmick, - devolution among them.

Labour Party rule in Scotland and Wales is synonymous with graft and corruption, as is oozing out of opportunist 'reformist' niche after opportunist 'reformist' niche all round Scotland's central belt.

What more can be expected from soul-destroying lifelong class-collaboration with capitalism's graft and corruption whilst pretending to be 'reforming' it?

But what possible use is it to have yet another, more expensive, layer of bureaucratic crookedness masquerading as 'Scotland's own parliament'?

The working class need that like a hole in the head.

More control over the affairs of 'Scotland'?? And who controls all the Labourite skulduggery in Glasgow, Renfrewshire, and other 'reformist' sleazebins around Labour Scotland??? Not the people.

What Scottish workers need leadership towards is to give a signal to the whole of Britain that it is the imperialist system which is failing people, not the 'remoteness' of government from Labour MPs in London (or Tories when in office).

As has been widely stated in the far north of Scotland, 'remote bureaucracy from London or remote bureaucracy from Edinburgh. What possible difference can it make??'

The only achievement of all this fraudulent 'devolution' hype by New Labour hucksters and the opportunists of petty-bourgeois nationalism has been to encourage more expressions of sad, small-minded Scots chauvinism, mouthing insecure spite and envy about 'the English' when they actually mean the capitalist system which in reality is screwing them, - Scots and English monopoly-capital alike.

Sickest of all are the wretched fake-'lefts' whose conceited middle-class philistinism has seen them prancing for a year or more about the completely fictitious 'revolutionary' advantages of devolution.

"Workers want to use the new concessions the better to fight for their own class demands," it is argued in support of a 'critical yes vote', to be accompanied, of course, with the demand for a workers revolution and a republic, etc, etc.

But nothing is explained about the key phrase in all this posturing, - "the better to fight for their own class demands".

How? Why? This is just romantic nationalist fantasy at a workerist level. The whole of Marxist-Leninist science on the creation of the modern revolutionary proletariat (see below) ridicules such philistine make-believe and wishful thinking.

An international revolutionary proletariat is the crucial factor for the completely new historical epoch, one that can only have been created by the workings of international monopoly-capital giving more and more workers a common interest and understanding of what is wrong with society and how it can be put right, - and precisely overcoming the petty local national concerns, emotions, and grievances which have always been used by the authorities to divide-and-rule, to keep workers split along national, racial, regional, or religious lines.

Far from more clearly identifying the 'enemy' to Scotland's workers, the devolution myths being spun by New Labour and the Scottish petty-bourgeoisie can only confuse them.

The main 'lefts' in Scotland, the Militant gang now separated from Militant south of the border and called Scottish Militant Labour, the core of the Scottish Socialist Alliance, - would now pursue their tail-ending compromise with what they claim is the 'popularity of the SNP on the streets' all the way to accepting the 'independence' arguments themselves:

"Socialists should support independence in a hypothetical referendum. We should point out the limitations of separate development but also the resources at our disposal. With equal exchange, Scotland has immense natural and technical resources. We would point out that these resources could only be brought to fully benefit the working class by confronting capital..." 

etc, etc.

Try this application of putting history into reverse in order the easier to achieve a workers government, to ex-Yugoslavia or the former Soviet workers state. Has the pure national exclusiveness of stressing 'our advantages and resources from going it alone' made it easier for workers in Croatia or Slovenia, say, to 'take power for a workers government' as these dreamers say will happen in a separatist Scotland?

Exactly the opposite, of course. Reaction is now strengthened tenfold under foetid tinpot nationalist posturing such as Croatia now suffers, e.g. Which, of course, is exactly why imperialism was so ruthlessly and slyly determined to ensure the break—up of the Yugoslav Federation, - precisely to guarantee reaction's rule for decades to come.

Trust the philistine anti-communist ignorance of the SML Trots to be not at all bothered about playing with reactionary nationalist sentiment in Scotland.

All Militant (now called Socialist Party) propaganda, north and south of the border, is now fizzing with 'socialist' enthusiasm for this nationalist separatism:

"There will be no limit to the parliament's freedom to evolve towards independence if the majority want it," 

declares Socialism Today. 

"In reality, a double 'yes' vote would usher in an entirely new situation for Scotland. After 300 years of centralised Westminster rule, the establishment of a Scottish parliament would have a powerful psychological impact," 

it goes on. All of which 

"leaves open the possibility of far-reaching powers being wrested from Westminster in the future....Inevitably these devolution proposals will in the long term spark movements for more decisive control to be exercised by a sovereign Scottish parliament", 

etc,  etc.

Workers Power also tail-ends reactionary Scottish nationalism, calling for a yes vote as a matter 'of revolutionary principle' but to be immediately followed up by an all-out attack on the Scottish parliament because 

"A shackled Scottish parliament which proves powerless...will play into the hands of the nationalists", 

and because it will be 

"just as likely that a new Labour-dominated Scottish parliament will indeed take the sting out of the democracy question in Scotland."                                 

From the point of view of revolutionary working-class aspirations, a bourgeois regional parliament under capitalism will always be 'powerless', so why confuse workers that it is important to vote for it?

Even more bizarrely, the pressure to tail-end the nationalists' supposed street-credibility is less of a concern in Wales, so there Workers Power tell workers not to bother to support devolution because it is a

"diversion from the real problems facing working people".

But even those devolution-minded 'lefts' who belatedly called for a boycott of Labour's diversionary referendum because it denies "genuine self-determination", like the CPGB, are still caught up in the petty-bourgeois nationalist confusion:

"Blair's parliament with restricted powers is a sop which shows that Labour too does not trust us to determine all aspects of our future"

declares its front-page statement.

"Us"??? "Our future"??? - from a bourgeois parliament, even if it had tax-varying powers of three hundred pence in the pound instead of the "only three pence in the pound" complained of????

What idiotic petty-bourgeois anti-communist confusion, swept along by idiotic petty-bourgeois nationalist rottenness.

Marxism-Leninism has never been so disgraced as by such bogus 'communists'.

(In these quotes, Lenin is highly critical of nationalist diversions even in cases where smaller nations are genuinely 'oppressed', which is not remotely true of Scotland where people enjoy full democratic rights the same as every other part of the country. Which gives Lenin's words even more force.) [In these passages, the word Social-Democrat was being used to mean Communist]:

Marxism cannot be reconciled with nationalism, be it even of the "most just", "purest", most refined and civilised brand. In place of all forms of nationalism Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations in the higher unity, a unity that is growing before our eyes with every mile of railway line that is built, with every international trust, and every workers' association that is formed (an association that is international in its economic activities as well as in its ideas and aims).

The principle of nationality is historically inevitable in bourgeois society and, taking this society into due account, the Marxist fully recognises the historical legitimacy of national movements. But to prevent this recognition from becoming an apologia of nationalism, it must be strictly limited to what is progressive in such movements, in order that this recognition may not lead to bourgeois ideology obscuring proletarian consciousness.

The awakening of the masses from feudal lethargy, and their struggle against all national oppression, for the sovereignty of the people, of the nation, are progressive. Hence, it is the Marxist's bounden duty to stand for the most resolute and consistent democratism on all aspects of the national question. This task is largely a negative one. But this is the limit the proletariat can go to in supporting nationalism, for beyond that begins the "positive" activity of the bourgeoisie striving to fortify nationalism.

To throw off the feudal yoke, all national oppression, and all privileges enjoyed by any particular nation or language, is the imperative duty of the proletariat as a democratic force, and is certainly in the interests of the proletarian class struggle, which is obscured and retarded by bickering on the national question. But to go beyond these strictly limited and definite historical limits in helping bourgeois nationalism means betraying the proletariat and siding with the bourgeoisie. There is a border-line here, which is often very slight and which the Bundists and Ukrainian nationalist-socialists completely lose sight of.

Combat all national oppression? Yes, of course! Fight for any kind of national development, for "national culture' in general?—Of course not. The economic development of capitalist society presents us with examples of immature national movements all over the world, examples of the formation of big nations out of a number of small ones, or to the detriment of some of the small ones, and also examples of the assimilation of nations. The development of nationality in general is the principle of bourgeois nationalism; hence the exclusiveness of bourgeois nationalism, hence the endless national bickering. The proletariat, however, far from undertaking to uphold the national development of every nation, on the contrary, warns the masses against such illusions, stands for the fullest freedom of capitalist intercourse and welcomes every kind of assimilation of nations, except that which is founded on force or privilege.

Consolidating nationalism within a certain "justly" delimited sphere, "constitutionalising" nationalism, and securing the separation of all nations from one another by means of a special state institution—such is the ideological foundation and content of cultural-national autonomy. This idea is thoroughly bourgeois and thoroughly false. The proletariat cannot support any consecration of nationalism; on the contrary, it supports everything that helps to obliterate national distinctions and remove national barriers; it supports everything that makes the ties between nationalities closer and closer, or tends to merge nations. To act differently means siding with reactionary nationalist philistinism.

Marxists are, of course, opposed to federation and decentralisation, for the simple reason that capitalism requires for its development the largest and most centralised possible states. Other conditions being equal, the class-conscious proletariat will always stand for the larger state. It will always fight against medieval particularism, and will always welcome the closest possible economic amalgamation of large territories in which the proletariat's struggle against the bourgeoisie can develop on a broad basis.

Capitalism's broad and rapid development of the productive forces calls for large, politically compact and united territories, since only here can the bourgeois class—together with its inevitable antipode, the proletarian class—unite and sweep away all the old, medieval, caste, parochial, petty-national, religious and other barriers. 

While, and insofar as, different nations constitute a single state, Marxists will never, under any circumstances, advocate either the federal principle or decentralisation. The great centralised state is a tremendous historical step forward from medieval disunity to the future socialist unity of the whole world, and only via such a state (inseparably connected with capitalism), can there be any road to socialism.
Oct.1913     CRITICAL REMARKS ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION

The same applies to the national question. In most Western countries it was settled long ago. It is ridiculous to seek an answer to non-existent questions in the programmes of Western Europe. In this respect Rosa Luxemburg has lost sight of the most important thing—the difference between countries where bourgeois-democratic reforms have long been completed, and those where they have not. The crux of the matter lies in this difference. Rosa Luxemburg's complete disregard of it transforms her verbose article into a collection of empty and meaningless platitudes.

The epoch of bourgeois-democratic revolutions in Western, continental Europe embraces a fairly definite period, approximately between 1789 and 1871. This was precisely the period of national movements and the creation of national states. When this period drew to a close, Western Europe had been transformed into a settled system of bourgeois states, which, as a general rule, were nationally uniform states. 

Therefore, to seek the right to self-determination in the programmes of West-European socialists at this time of day is to betray one's ignorance of the ABC of Marxism. 

In Eastern Europe and Asia the period of bourgeois-democratic revolutions did not begin until 1905. The revolutions in Russia, Persia, Turkey and China, the Balkan wars—such is the chain of world events of our period in our "Orient". And only a blind man could fail to see in this chain of events the awakening of a whole series of bourgeois-democratic national movements which strive to create nationally independent and nationally uniform states. It is precisely and solely because Russia and the neighbouring countries are passing through this period that we must have a clause in our programme on the right of nations to self-determination.

The categorical requirement of Marxist theory in investigating any social question is that it be examined within definite historical limits, and, if it refers to a particular country (e. g., the national programme for a given country), that account be taken of the specific features distinguishing that country from others in the same historical epoch.

What does this categorical requirement of Marxism imply in its application to the question under  discussion?

First of all, it implies that a clear distinction must be drawn between the two periods of capitalism, which differ radically from each other as far as the national movement is concerned. On the one hand, there is the period of the collapse of feudalism and absolutism, the period of the formation of the bourgeois-democratic society and state, when the national movements for the first time become mass movements and in one way or another draw all classes of the population into politics through the press, participation in representative institutions, etc. On the other hand, there is the period of fully formed capitalist states with a long-established constitutional regime and a highly developed antagonism between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie—a period that may be called the eve of capitalism's downfall.

The typical features of the first period are: the awakening of national movements and the drawing of the peasants, the most numerous and the most sluggish section of the population, into these movements, in connection with the struggle for political liberty in general, and for the rights of the nation in particular. Typical features of the second period are: the absence of mass bourgeois-democratic movements and the fact that developed capitalism, in bringing closer together nations that have already been fully drawn into commercial intercourse, and causing them to intermingle to an increasing degree, brings the antagonism between internationally united capital and the international working-class movement into the forefront.

The interests of the working class and of its struggle against capitalism demand complete solidarity and the closest unity of the workers of all nations; they demand resistance to the nationalist policy of the bourgeoisie of every nationality. Hence, Social-Democrats would be deviating from proletarian policy and subordinating the workers to the policy of the bourgeoisie if they were to repudiate the right of nations to self-determination, i. e., the right of an oppressed nation to secede, or if they were to support all the national demands of the bourgeoisie of oppressed nations. It makes no difference to the hired worker whether he is exploited chiefly by the Great-Russian bourgeoisie rather than the non-Russian bourgeoisie, or by the Polish bourgeoisie rather than the Jewish bourgeoisie, etc. The hired worker who has come to understand his class interests is equally indifferent to the state privileges of the Great-Russian capitalists and to the promises of the Polish or Ukrainian capitalists to set up an earthly paradise when they obtain state privileges. Capitalism is developing and will continue to develop, anyway, both in integral states with a mixed population and in separate national states. In any case the hired worker will be an object of exploitation. Successful struggle against exploitation requires that the proletariat be free of nationalism, and be absolutely neutral, so to speak, in the fight for supremacy that is going on among the bourgeoisie of the various nations. If the proletariat of any one nation gives the slightest support to the privileges of its "own" national bourgeoisie, that will inevitably rouse distrust among the proletariat of another nation; it will weaken the international class solidarity of the workers and divide them, to the delight of the bourgeoisie.

The demand for a "yes" or "no" reply to the question of secession in the case of every nation may seem a very "practical" one. In reality it is absurd; it is metaphysical in theory, while in practice it leads to subordinating the proletariat to the bourgeoisie's policy. The bourgeoisie always places its national demands in the forefront, and does so in categorical fashion. With the proletariat, however, these demands are subordinated to the interests of the class struggle. Theoretically, you cannot say in advance whether the bourgeois-democratic revolution will end in a given nation seceding from another nation, or in its equality with the latter; in either case, the important thing for the proletariat is to ensure the development of its class. For the bourgeoisie it is important to hamper this development by pushing the aims of its "own" nation before those of the proletariat. That is why the proletariat confines itself, so to speak, to the negative demand for recognition of the right to self-determination, without giving guarantees to any nation, and without undertaking to give anything at the expense of another nation.

The whole task of the proletarians in the national question is "unpractical" from the standpoint of the nationalist bourgeoisie of every nation, because the proletarians, opposed as they are to nationalism of every kind, demand "abstract" equality; they demand, as a matter of principle, that there should be no privileges, however slight. Failing to grasp this, Rosa Luxemburg, by her misguided eulogy of practicality, has opened the door wide for the opportunists, and especially for opportunist concessions to Great-Russian nationalism.
May 1914 THE RIGHT OF NATIONS TO SELF-DETERMINATION

What is the lesson to be drawn from this concrete example which must be analysed concretely if there is any desire to be true to Marxism? Only this: (1) that the interests of the liberation of a number of big and very big nations in Europe rate higher than the interests of the movement for liberation of small nations; (2) that the demand for democracy must not be considered in isolation but on a European—today we should say a world—scale.

That is all there is to it. There is no hint of any repudiation of that elementary socialist principle which the Poles forget but to which Marx was always faithful—that no nation can be free if it oppresses other nations. If the concrete situation which confronted Marx when tsarism dominated international politics were to repeat itself, for instance, in the form of a few nations starting a socialist revolution (as a bourgeois-democratic revolution was started in Europe in 1848), and other nations serving as the chief bulwarks of bourgeois reaction—then we too would have to be in favour of a revolutionary war against the latter, in favour of "crushing" them, in favour of destroying all their outposts, no matter what small-nation movements arose in them. Consequently, instead of rejecting any examples of Marx's tactics—this would mean professing Marxism while abandoning it in practice—we must analyse them concretely and draw invaluable lessons for the future. The several demands of democracy, including self-determination, are not an absolute, but only a small part of the general-democratic (now: general-socialist) world movement. In individual concrete cases, the part may contradict the whole; if so, it must be rejected.

It is our duty to teach the workers to be "indifferent" to national distinctions. There is no doubt about that. 

To be an internationalist Social-Democrat one must not think only of one's own nation, but place above it the interests of all nations, their common liberty and equality. Everyone accepts this in "theory" but displays an annexationist indifference in practice. There is the root of the evil.

On the other hand, a Social-Democrat from a small nation must emphasise in his agitation the second word of our general formula: "voluntary integration" of nations. He may, without failing in his duties as an internationalist, be in favour of both the political independence of his nation and its integration with the neighbouring state of X, Y, Z, etc. But in all cases he must fight against small-nation narrow-mindedness, seclusion and isolation, consider the whole and the general, subordinate the particular to the general interest.

People who have not gone into the question thoroughly think that it is "contradictory" for the Social-Democrats of oppressor nations to insist on the "freedom to secede", while Social-Democrats of oppressed nations insist on the "freedom to integrate". However, a little reflection will show that there is not, and cannot be, any other road to internationalism and the amalgamation of nations, any other road from the given situation to this goal.
July 1916 THE DISCUSSION ON SELF-DETERMINATION SUMMED UP

7. The Social-Democratic attitude to the slogan of "cultural-national" (or simply "national") "autonomy" or to plans for its implementation is a negative one, since this slogan (1) undoubtedly contradicts the internationalism of the class struggle of the proletariat, (2) makes it easier for the proletariat and the masses of working people to be drawn into the sphere of influence of bourgeois nationalism, and (3) is capable of distracting attention from the task of the consistent democratic transformation of the state as a whole, which transformation alone can ensure (to the extent that this can, in general, be ensured under capitalism) peace between nationalities.
June 1913       THESES ON THE NATIONAL QUESTION

Marxist science has always been clear that the fight against monopoly-imperialism could best be fought within a highly centralised state with the fullest-developed local self-government autonomy, but that specific alterations to bourgeois-government patterns would never divert the working class from its basic revolutionary programme to overthrow the capitalist state in its entirety.

A centralised state would always be better than a federal state, but a federal state might sometimes be an advance on a state held back by too many national exceptions and parochial differences creating nationalist divisions and bickering.

In Britain, under fairly average conditions of bourgeois democracy, improvements in local self-government can be acceptable, for what they are worth, but it is a thousand times more important to expose diversionary and reactionary nationalist hype if that is the government's real aim, as in the case of these New Labour 'reform' gimmicks.

The right of Scotland or any other nation to self-determination is not disputed. But as Lenin explains above, it is the concrete steps being taken which really have to be dealt with, - examined in their origin, their purpose, and in the light of the overwhelming working-class interest in the fight for the socialist overthrow of monopoly-imperialism throughout Britain and beyond, by the workers of Britain and beyond. Build Leninism.  Royston Bull

Sordid end of idle-rich aristocrat and her dodgy playboy missed by fortune-teller but seized on by disturbed people. Is a Rasputin effect emerging through the contradictory chaos?

The sick hysteria about Diana's death continued throughout the week of mourning, the funeral, and after.

The 'star'-oriented elitist capitalist system continued to be milked for all it was worth by the imperialist media and the Establishment.

But alongside the exploitation of naïve gawping, innocent sentimentality, and crass posturing, - there could also be heard the rumbling of revolts.

The Diana-worship also often contained within it an identification with Diana as a rebel against the Establishment.

At the same time, many of the howls of contempt for the blatantly ludicrous hypocrisy of the press, — hounding Diana one minute mercilessly, but turning her into the saintliest woman that has ever lived the next, - aimed wider at capitalist-society humbug in general.

The emerging scepticism in the published letters columns did not quite reach the point of condemning the whole iconography of the hero-worshipping capitalist economic system, but it did grasp the confusion, inadequacy, and the wish to belong to something worthwhile, being expressed in the daft Diana-cult.

Diana's rebellion against the vicious Establishment which thought she should have carried on her aristocratic duty as the loyal royal consort without complaining, whatever the provocations and injury, was not the cause of popular discontent with the ruling-class system, - but it has acted as a lightning-conductor for it.
 
People are beginning to loudly disapprove of the grotesque inequalities in this society, which are not only continuing but rapidly worsening.

It is a paradox that one vehicle for the popular expression of this discontent has been the bizarre story of an exploited upper-class female who decided to get her own back on the Establishment which used her.

Although a spoiled and unstable aristocratic brat herself, Diana shared enough contemporary 'lifestyle' features with ordinary people to win widespread identification in her quite ruthless war with the powers-that-be.

The sentimental sympathy the public expressed for her last week was sadly misplaced, - but its harder anti-monarchy edge was an interesting warning of trouble to come for the British imperialist system.

The dramatic open criticism of the royal family from all directions had far more to it than just indignation at the cruelties of arranged-marriage settlements when things go wrong, or anger at the unfeeling woodenness with which the monarchy pursued its vendetta with Diana.

Her albeit false appearance of 'concern for everyone', 'openly shared suffering', and 'lively spontaneous dedication to duty', etc, was also partly taken up so as to ask: 'But what about all these other royals? What do they do? What use are they?', etc.

The astonishing funeral-address attack on the royal family's savagery towards Diana by her brother, the 9th Earl Spencer, even stirred the 'safe' official congregation in the Abbey to unprecedented applause.

The mass enthusiasm for his condemnation of the Palace's clumsy arrogance and vindictiveness has deeper and more complex roots than just Diana's personal tragedy. A fear of failure in the inter-imperialist world of trade-war struggles and other great-power conflicts lies at the root of much unease in Britain.

Throughout decades, and even generations of British imperialist decline, many voices have railed at hidebound British traditions, about corporate and managerial stuffiness and an unwillingness to face up to failure, to learn from mistakes, and to innovate.

Thatcherism's elitist bullying postured for 18 years that its harshness was at last instilling new vigour and world-class accomplishment into Britain.

But that has all proved to be a dreadful illusion. Thatcherism was unceremoniously booted out in the May-election for its endless sleaze and hypocrisy, and ultimately for its crass incompetence.

It is not yet clear exactly what lessons have been learned from all this by the public, which will only become obvious in how people react to the even more appalling mess that New Labour is going to make of governing ageing British imperialism.

But there seems to be the possible beginnings of a mood to challenge virtually everything about the way things have been done in Britain hitherto.

Potential mass dissent would seem to be spreading everywhere and into every subject, - environmental questions, the conditions of schools, the health service, pensions and benefits, the 'job-seeking' rackets imposed on the unemployed, etc, etc, - all marked by an increasingly confident outspokenness on the part of the protestors.

Throughout all of these matters, a common theme emerges of people edging towards a demand for a better society all round.

As well as the specific individual hurts and injustices which get people up in arms, the atomising soullessness of capitalism, - forcing everyone to contemplate their difficulties as individuals and to bear the burdens and punishments when things go wrong, - makes a yearning for a real society develop.

It is possible that some strands of these sentiments have entered into the clamour to appropriate the rebellious aristocratic glamour queen Diana as a 'people's princess'.

It is of course a completely daft sentiment expressed in this way, and obviously, in this form, maintains exactly the same hero-worship structure which is such a crucial and degenerate essence of capitalism's nasty game. Paradoxically, one of the very key phenomena of how capitalism keeps everyone in thrall to its rotten divisiveness, - the star system which fools everybody into believing that with luck, they could become superstars, or super-rich, too, - has temporarily provided a vehicle for these early stages of what may end in a history-changing revolt against the capitalist system itself.

The more pathetic exhibitionist grieving was always a cruel reminder of how capitalism's philistine use of the star-personality system makes idiots of ordinary people.
                                              
But mixed in with this humiliating hero-worship for a completely worthless upper-class parasite was some shrewder enthusiasm for the embarrassing difficulties which Diana had caused to the state bureaucracy of a vicious capitalist society.

Crudely and simplistically, a wish was being expressed to belong to a more caring world.

Capitalism's exploitative and discarding society is incurably sick.

Diana-worship will get people nowhere. But the sentiment that this society is uncaring, and that people deserve a far better society to live in, - might well be linked to far wider progressive notions that capitalist society is unalterably defective in everything it now does.

Sensing this, much of the media has tried diverting the week's element of rebellious feeling into delusions that 'the monarchy will be far more respectful of public opinion from now on', etc, - or even into calming admiration for the supposedly brilliant role played by the Blair government in 'reconciling the people with their state-structure, and vice-versa', etc.

It will not work. There is no comfort to be had under capitalism in crisis, no matter how attentively things are patched up or even mildly 'reformed'.

The sentiments against a cruel system go far deeper than that, even though they are not remotely consciously expressed at the moment.

The very workings of the capitalist system, requiring ever-more-complex and conscious teamwork and more massive and sophisticated communications networks, - oblige people to feel more socially-inclined, and to think more socially-inclined, all the time.

But what the ruthless anarchy of the hire-and-fire capitalist economic system gives to people is ever greater feelings of exploitation, atomisation, and alienation. Insecurity, and therefore discontent, is on a relentlessly rising graph. It is no surprise that such vast numbers of people identified with Diana's heartless and vindictive abuse at the hands of the ruling elite of this arbitrary, unreliable, and unstable system.

People will naturally go on more and more wanting community and real society. The harder-nosed requirements of the trade-war inter-imperialist-conflict system will increasingly insist, as Thatcher did, that 'there is no such thing as society', 'there is no such thing as community'.

The mass organisation of modern capitalist life disposes people automatically in terms of well-planned societies and communities with instant genuine communication between all areas of society so that any problems which arise can quickly be sorted out openly to everyone's satisfaction in the best way possible.

The modern capitalist rat-race gives people no such sense of society at all. It merely fills them with insecurity about their longterm or even short-term economic wellbeing and job viability or satisfaction; about their own and their family's personal safety from crime and violence; and about such a bellicose and dangerous system's ability to guarantee the country's longterm wellbeing.

It is a long, long and difficult route to these understandings from the naïve exploited sentiments poured out in sympathy with Diana's tragedy. But those feelings of solidarity with suffering and revolt might well lie in the same direction as much more important political understandings to come.

Even many of the very rich no longer feel comfortable in 'belonging to' capitalist society. For the poor, the disadvantaged, and for most ordinary people, it is becoming quite impossible to feel that they really 'belong to' capitalist society. Some of that need to 'belong' somewhere better was involved in the outpourings for the bitter and tacky death of Diana. AC

World Socialist Review
(edited extracts from a variety of anti-imperialist struggle).

Political assassinations (excluding those killed in combat) have increased to eleven per day and the death squads have spread into new areas sowing panic and terror as they go. Between 1988 and June 1994 some 25,211 people were victims of political violence in Colombia

COLOMBIA IS ACCLAIMED as Latin America's oldest, most stable democracy. No one doubts its claim to stable government, but its claim to be a democracy couldn't be further from the truth. It has a parliament and elections are held at regular intervals; the constitution guarantees all the fundamental liberties and rights that we are supposed to take for granted. But there is a difference between what is formally guaranteed and what rights can actually be implemented. Its human rights record is one of the worst in the world.

In the mid-1980s it looked like Colombia's future would be so very different to what it is. The government had been negotiating with the guerrillas and they came to an agreement with the FARC (Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) that they could set up a political party in order to create a political space for them as a first step towards an eventual demobilisation. This party was called Union Patriótica and its name has become synonymous with terror as its members have been targeted for murder. Nobody expected the party to flourish, but to the surprise of the authorities the party did quite well in elections.

The death squads response was not slow in coming. They began a campaign of assassinations against members of the UP which in the four years from 1986 to 1990, claimed 2,500 lives. Councillors, MPs and even presidential candidates were shot dead. Needless to say the demobilisation never took place. The death squads also targeted the people who voted for the UP.

In Segovia in 1988, after the UP won the municipal elections by a landslide, leaflets appeared in the town threatening to punish the population for its "betrayal" of the Liberal Party. On 11 November 43 people were shot dead only yards from the police station whose members looked on passively. This pattern was repeated throughout Colombia until the UP was broken.

In most cases nobody was ever charged and in even fewer cases was somebody actually convicted. Colombian government figures report that "in 97 to 99.5% of all crimes the lawbreakers are never brought to justice". The other problem of course is that all crimes committed by members of the army or the police come under the jurisdiction of a military tribunal, where the army investigates the army.

The optimism of the 1980s was well and truly buried as was confidence in the government's desire or ability to enforce the most basic rights enshrined in its own constitution. The outlook for the 90s is not much better. Despite the fact that the UP is now a spent political force the attacks on their members last year ran at the rate of one every two days.

Political assassinations (excluding those killed in combat) have increased to eleven per day and the death squads have spread into new areas sowing panic and terror as they go. Between 1988 and June 1994 some 25,211 people were victims of political violence in Colombia. This figure includes nearly 8,000 deaths in armed confrontations between the guerrillas and the army. Last year was said to be one of the worst years to date due to the increased death squad activity.

The death squads are now an integral part of the military strategy being employed. The percentage of killings carried out by the army and the police has declined in recent years allowing the government to claim that they are cleaning up their act. However, parallel to this decline there has been a major increase in death squad activity. These groups operate with the moral and logistical backing of members of the armed forces. There is no other explanation for the ease with which they can penetrate heavily-militarised zones.

Even the US State Department recognised in its report on Colombia last year that the present administration "has not taken action to curb increased abuses committed by paramilitary groups, verging on a policy of tacit acquiescence. Even in areas where they had heavy influence, the armed forces seldom restrained paramilitary activity and abuses."

Furthermore, in 1994 the government created the "Convivir" which theoretically are rural defence cooperatives but in practice are a legal cover for the paramilitaries. In the department of Antioquia there are 64 Convivirs of which 50 are based in the town of Puerto Berrío, home to the XIV brigade of the Colombian Army. The fact that most of these associations are in one of the most protected militarised zones proves that their real role is not rural defence, but counter-insurgency offence.

What is at stake in Colombia? Why such high levels of violence? The answers to these questions are interrelated. Colombia is a wealthy country even if 64% of the population live in absolute poverty and a high number of those live in the street. It is the major producer of coal in South America and one of the largest banana producing nations in the world. This coupled with its large gold, uranium and oil deposits has ensured that Colombia is never far from the thoughts of the large multinationals and the political powers to the north. There are vital economic and political interests to be defended.

Colombia has a long history of imperialist intervention going right back to the building of the Panama Canal. Before the canal was built Panama was a province of Colombia. However, at that time it suited the imperialists to build the canal in a country that they could easily control and so Panama was born.

The interventionism did not stop there. In 1927 over 1,500 banana workers were killed after going on strike. Such were the lengths that they were willing to go to to protect their position and wealth. Even today similar events take place. Frontino Gold Mines was implicated in the massacre in Segovia. The death squads had used their printing press to print up their death threats.

Serious allegations have also been made against BP about their alleged involvement with death squads. Although nothing has been proved to date a recent motion of the European Parliament called for an investigation into the alleged activities of BP. Alongside the multinationals there is the Colombian oligarchy which has concentrated most of the wealth in the hands of just 68 people.

All this wealth and privilege has been under threat for some time. Since the 1960s a number of guerrilla groups have operated in the country. Although in the 1980s some of them demobilised after negotiations with the government, three are still in operation. They are the FARC which is linked to the Communist Party; the EPL (People's Liberation Army), a Maoist organisation; and the UC-ELN (Camilist Union-National Liberation Army) which is an independent group, although it has a certain sympathy with the Cuban government. Together these three have over 15,000 members in arms. The largest is the FARC with a geographical spread over the entire country. Then the UC-ELN which is also spread around the country but with a particular strength in the regions of Santander and the Venezuelan border. The EPL is the smallest of the groups, numbering only a thousand and it is also reduced to one small area; Urabá. The worsening violence in Colombia can be directly attributed to the growth of these organisations and the crude attempts of the military and the death squads to break them. Javier Darío Restrepo, writing in the Colombian newspaper El Espectador described the advance of the guerrillas in the following terms: "Today armed guerrilla organisations can be found in more than 622 of the 1,000 municipalities. The ten years between 1985 and 1995 were sufficient to increase their presence from 173 to 622 municipalities.

"This advance coincided with the new era of elected mayors, which left many of them with their backs against the wall. Many of them are in prison accused by the army of collaborating with the guerrillas. The others have learned to co-exist with a guerrilla that keeps an eye on their handling of the budget etc."

Of the government he said that the "military and the government, like bad losers, maintain the proposal of reconquering these 622 municipalities at gunpoint or by imposing military mayors. Turning this phenomenon into an opportunity for peace is in the interests of the people, but this doesn't coincide with the military's position which is the same as the governments."

However, this is only part of the picture. The US sends 52% of all its Latin American military aid to Colombia. On top of this the Colombians also receive aid from Israel. This is done under the guise of a war on drugs. In the popular press drug barons have been equated with the guerrillas or, as they are sometimes termed, the narco-guerrillas. However, while it is true that some peasants grow coca in the regions controlled by the guerrillas none of the organisations are involved in the production and marketing of cocaine. This is done elsewhere. There is no shortage of evidence to point the finger at the army and some politicians. Even the president has been accused of financing his campaign with drug money. No one doubts whether drug money was used or not, it's all a question of if the president knew or not.

In Río Frío 13 people were shot dead for refusing to sell their land to a drugs baron. At the time the local army commander claimed they had been killed in an armed confrontation between his men and the guerrillas. It later emerged that they were murdered. He was never charged, but he was made to resign.  The accusation of narco-guerrilla is a case of the guilty pointing the finger at the innocent.

Despite the repression, popular organisations exist and continue to work in building a new Colombia There are some 2,000 small trade unions which account for only 7% of the active population. However, alongside them there are numerous rural communal action committees which involve most of the peasant population. Lastly, there are the human rights groups which function throughout Colombia. 

These organisations continue despite the threats which have been made against them. Many of their members continue to be targeted by the death squads.

The media doesn't offer much of a voice of opposition. Most of the major newspapers are controlled by members of the oligarchy and those independent-minded journalists who choose to speak out are also targeted. Some 40% of all journalists killed in Latin America in the last decade were killed in Colombia. Occasionally more subtle forms of censorship are used.

According to the US State Department's report: "The National Television Commission threatened to review the licence of the television newscast '24 Hours' unless the news director appeared before the commission and justified an interview with a foreign ambassador that was critical of the President. The threat was an obvious effort by Samper administration allies on the commission to intimidate newscasts into softening their stances toward the Government".

The church in Colombia does not provide a voice or a forum for the oppressed as it has done in other Latin American countries. Although the church hierarchy will condemn excesses by the army they are not a leading voice of opposition. Liberation theology never took root amongst the hierarchy and ever since Camillo Torres was killed in the mountains after joining the guerrillas the church has been fearful of being identified with his legacy. This is not to say that individual priests and nuns are not active on the ground. However, they are small in number and have their own problems with the church. Although it should be pointed out that the UC-ELN is led by a Spanish priest, Manuel Peréz, which makes the church even more reticent to speak out.

Colombia has come under the spotlight for its repeated violations of human rights. Amnesty International and other organisations have worked hard to bring to public attention the real situation in Latin America's oldest "democracy". Even the European Parliament and the US State Department have been forced to recognise that all is not well in Colombia. What is needed in Colombia is a complete arms embargo until the human rights situation improves and those officers involved in human rights abuses are removed from the army and charged. The international community must share part of the blame for having turned a blind eye to what is going on in Colombia.

Produced by the Dublin-based Colombian Network (Reprinted from An Phoblacht)