|
When Karl Marx published Capital, it was already becoming obsolete. Capital was an intense study of the past. Capitalism in the meantime was already starting to grow into monopoly capitalism. The British proletariat was no longer the same creature that Marx studied. In a sense I think Marx already realized this and he attributed the changes in the British working class to the influence of trade unionism. Now more than 100 years in the future and with the benefit of much longer hindsight, can we see more clearly?
Today it is difficult to imagine the horrific conditions of the European working class that bred rebellion and revolt. To give a small clue – In the reign of Edward VI, a statute was written into law (1547) “that if anyone refuses to work, he shall be condemned as a slave to the person who has denounced him as an idler. The master shall feed his slave on bread and water, weak broth and such refuse meat as he thinks fit. He has the right to force him to do any work, no matter how disgusting, with whip and chains. If the slave is absent for a fortnight, he is condemned to slavery for life and is to be branded on forehead or back with the letter S; if he runs away thrice, he is to be executed as a felon.” (Bertrand Russell – Roads to Freedom) It goes on to specify in detail what becomes of the slave’s children. Such people were called “roundsmen” and it was the time of the poor houses, press gangs, nascent capitalism and Britain’s conquest of colonies. The above law was kept on the books until the 19th century (around the time of the Communist Manifesto) and was legally enforceable until then. But England is also the home of “Liberalism”. How does one square off liberalism with the horrific conditions of the common people? I think the key is the conquest of colonies. The conquest of colonies not only created men greedy for more; it also created a group of very wealthy and very comfortable men without greater ambition than to do charitable works and as Britain had not only a head start, but the lion’s share compared to the rest of Europe, the British proletariat became much better off than their compatriots in France or Germany. This is where nationalism starts to come in. First, colonialism gave benefits to the English working class and improved their conditions. At about the time that Capital came out, British working class men received the vote (women did not get the vote until some decades later). The vote gave the British working class an even greater share in the spoils of colonialism and imperialism. They could now influence the way the national budget was spent. British workers began to get something called a disposable income. If they did not spend it on drink and fines for drunkenness, it enabled them to accumulate property and assets the same way the capitalists do, even if it is on a smaller scale. It also enabled the capitalists to broaden their markets as workers became bigger and bigger consumers. It was a win-win situation. The guys who lost out were the unfortunately uncivilized natives of the colonies. (In his early years, even Bertrand Russell thought of Asians, Africans and South Americans as uncivilized natives as did Marx.) The communists also lost out. Lenin waited in vain for the European proletariat to rise to the rescue of a backward and desperate Russian proletariat not fully realizing that nationalism now ran more deeply than proletarian internationalism in the souls of European workers. Later communists also laboured in vain to promote revolution in Europe, blinded by their own theories and propaganda, but they were more successful in Asia – more or less by accident. Asians, Africans and South Americans copied the nationalism of the more civilized Europeans and launched their own revolts against colonialism and imperialism. Unfortunately for them, colonialists had carved out territories that included not just different tribes, but in many cases, different races altogether. Nationalism in 3rd World countries was stunted and distorted. In most cases it involved domination by a single tribe or race. There was also no possibility of rule by class since classes had not developed fully in these uncivilized parts of the world. They had no choice but to rule by political parties. And these political parties were dominated by a single tribe or race. Perversion of nationalism and rule by political parties resulted in exclusivity of the dominant tribe or race. Members of the dominant tribe, regardless of ability and based only on loyalty to the most powerful person of the tribe were placed in all positions of power to the exclusion of members of other tribes. This was a formula for endless inefficiency, corruption and civil wars. This was a formula for a failed state, the end result of which is some citizens wishing for a return of the old colonial masters. In Malaysia, we have all these symptoms of distorted nationalism and rule by political party in full bloom. If these were not enough, the ruling power is trying to freeze the situation for all time with a sinful and racist ideology called Ketuanan Melayu. We are facing a cross roads. The least we could do to try and get out of this misery is to learn lessons from more successful countries and social movements and to avoid the pitfalls, traps and snags that clutter the way of progress. Unfortunately this is easier said than done. Both vestigial racism and chauvinism of the competing races are major primary stumbling blocks. Coupled to this is the desperate resistance of the established power. Lack of free speech, outright police suppression, human rights abuses and tainted judiciary are some of the “lesser” yet more immediately fearful obstacles. But there is no choice. If we fail, we are headed for a failed state and even more misery. But I would be remiss if I just ended here. While we mop around feeling sorry for ourselves and wondering who to include or exclude in our nationalism, the rest of the world is not sitting still. Nationalism in developed countries including Russia and China will try to push the burden of the global crisis more and more in the direction of those weakest and least able to resist. When elephants fight, guess who gets trampled? - By batsman
 |
The Blogs 
