[page 14]
There are few more crucial issues faced by a socialist party than the attitude it takes to the notion of a "national interest" Explicitly, of the policy documents it Course, debates and the resolutions which it considers may never raise such an issue; nonetheless, within the political tradition described by the left as "social democracy" ult remains virtually unchallenged.
To social democrats the fact of a capitalist economic system is less Important than the presence of universal suffrage, regular elections and the other formal attributes of political democracy. They see the function of a socialist government with regard to capitalism as being one of removing blocks to efficiency such as an old boy network" by more "professional" management, recruited from members of all classes.
On these grounds, nationalisation of industries which are "failing the nation" is acceptable but public ownership "on principle" , of the Clause 4. type. iS not. They admit that unregulated capitalism tends to produce bad social "side effects" from pollution to unemployment, and see the role of a socialist state as supplying the necessary regulation, together with the "safety net" of the welfare system.
This view of society, with the state "harmonising" the interests of various groups, is perfectly compatible with the Idea of a national interest umling all classes and creeds, and the political argument with Conservatives is largely over rival claims to interpret this inferest correctly.
The traditional left-wing response is to deny the validity of appeals to the national interest because society is divided into classes with • mutually opposed interests. The phrase "canital-
Ist society" underlines the difference with the social democratic position, implying that imbalance of economic power inevitably creates an imbalance of political power in favour of the possessing classes, despite the formal political equality of the ballot box.
From this viewpoint taking industry and commerce into public ownership is not simply a means to their greater efficiency, but a prerequisite for the creation of a truly democratic society. If one accepts this "class struggle" position as being a more accurate reflection of social reality (those still not convinced should read R. Miliband The State in Capitalist Society, Quartet Books) then it becomes obvious that the concept of a national interest is a real obstacle to seeing social relations as they really are.
In reality, of course, socialists do not stand outside a capitalist society. analysing its workings in a spirit of detachment. Every time they watch television or read a newspaper, they are confronted with "current affairs coverage" which proceeds from a ready acceptance of the priority of a national interest. In these circumstances, the task of sustaining a socialist consciousness of contemporary events, day-in day-out, let alone taking the offensive, is considerable.
If, in addition, Socialists participate in electoral politics, the temptation to deal in the accepted currency of political debate is immense. So what tends to happen is that a split develops between a public face (in which the given terms of reference, national interest and all, are accepted, and "realistic" "moderate" politics are framed in these terms) and a private face, reserved for pubs and branch meetings. Close-up observation of this
kind of phenomenon tends to provoke much cynicism and contempt among local activists.
Another response is to withdraw from the hustings and wait for the revolution, preserving socialist purity while castigating labour leaders for their successive betrayals of the working class. The small left-wing sects find "national interest" so laughable that they fail to come to terms with its plausibility.
A socialist party has to take seriously the structure of beliefs held by most people about how things are in our society, and neither laugh it out of court as a pathetic tissue of falsehoods, nor be seduced into accepting it uncritically. Such beliefs should be tested as a scientist tests theories of nature, not simply by promoting an alternative theory, but by first showing their inadequacy in the face of social reality.
For example, consider the view that the E6-a-week pay limit is "fair" and represents an equal sacrifice by all sections of society in the national interest. An alternative view of wage "restraint" is that it represents an attempt by capitalism to solve its problems at the expense of the working class. But to say this is merely to preach to the converted, not to challenge the majority view.
What are needed to reveal the class bias inherent in the i6 limit are systematic studies of the way it actually discriminates against working people. Such studies would reveal how the bosses and their administrative and managerial personnel benefit from incremental pay structures, the rapidlyincreasing cash value of "fringe" benefits like company cars, concealed pay increases due to "job reclassification" , and the lack of any upper limit on increases in unearned income.
In a highly unequal society, equality of sacrifice can only be at all meaningful if the wealthy bear by far the largest burden; the effect of the £6 limit has been the exact reverse of this.
The nation/class polarisation is a particularly sensitive issue for socialists in the face of resurgent national feeling. as is shown by the wide range of socialist responses to the SNP upsurge in Scotland. This is a debate which will have to steer a careful course between the abstract and simplified extremes of "a Scot is a Scot" and "a worker is a worker"
Socialists will do well to enter this debate with a healthy scepticism regarding phrases like "Scotland's and its more populist cousin. interests "the interests of the Scottish people". Those who use such phrases should be asked, what interests?, which people?
CRAIG MCFARLANE