What England means to me

The British ruling class has not only tried to stifle the national culture of Scotland and Wales: the radical tradition of the English working class is in dire need of popularization. For example, I did not learn in school about the Diggers, the Levellers, the Luddites, the Tolpuddle Martyrs, the London Corresponding Society, or the Chartists, though the Suffragettes got a mention. Focus on events specific to England in the mainstream media did not stretch beyond coverage of sporting events.

It was no wonder that for a long time I confused England for Britain, and vice versa. Coming from an immigrant family further confused matters: could you be English if you were born in here but your parents were not? If my family came from Ireland but I was born here, did that mean I wasn’t Irish?

Unlike my Black and Asian friends at school, I did not face racism for being the child of immigrants, but I understood the hurt caused by jokes directed at the Irish and their use to divide people and prevent opposition to colonialism. Unlike my white friends, I knew a bit about the history of the British Empire, and could shoot-down claims that immigrants came to steal jobs or scrounge.

I have never experienced any animosity in Ireland for being English – and that is always the description, no one has ever said “Are you British?” upon hearing my accent.

As I grew up and became interested and involved in left-wing politics confusion over the issue of nationality returned. When New Labour allowed the creation of a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, it looked as if the contradictions inherent in the dual English-British identity held by most people in England were about to become antagonistic.

To this day, the idea that those “British” people in England might choose an English identity is rarely countenanced. If it is considered at all, it is as a threat. The reason for the denial or denigration of identity is that the development of an English national culture discrete from that of “Britishness” does in fact pose a threat to the British establishment. As Richard Weight wrote in his book Patriots,

“Over the coming decades, everything possible will be done to ensure the survival of the British state, some of which we shall never know about. The Empire may have gone, but capitalism – the economic system which helped to give birth to it – remains in existence. So too does the matrix of power relationships which evolved out of that economic system. It is highly unlikely that those who benefit most from capitalism would lose their privileges if Britain were to break up. But very few are prepared to take that chance.”

I would argue that the break-up of Britain is likely to pose a threat to power of the capitalist class. Would the independent nations of England, Scotland and Wales combine to pursue imperialist wars and colonial occupation in the Middle East as a junior partner of the United States? Would they have remained in the EU, and signed up to the establishment of a European capitalist super-state? Would the ruling class have succeeded in selling off public utilities and eroding the public provision of housing, healthcare, and education? Would there have been the policy of “managed decline” of the productive economy? I don’t think so.

The “matrix of power relationships” that evolved out of the demise of the British Empire have insured that Britain remains an imperial power – the process of decolonization did not result in Britain losing influence over its former colonies, and the close alliance with the United States is not just in recognition for the assistance provided during the Second World War, which itself came at a price.

It should be needless to say that what is essential to capitalists is detrimental to working people, and Britain’s role as a junior partner to the US, its membership of the European Union, and continued interference in the political affairs of former colonies, are essential for the capitalist class.

As a socialist, I do not seek an imperial or capitalist England, or a nation defined by religion or race. The abandoned Clause Four of the Labour Party’s constitution is probably the most famous affirmation (in the UK, at least) of what socialists seek, namely, “the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service”.

In addition to this, socialists seek fraternal relations between nations and support the right to self-determination. At home, this should mean active support for the struggle to establish political representation at a national level for England – a cause which complements the movements for self-government in the other nations of the UK and would greatly improve the prospect of a united Ireland.

The nationalisms of Wales and Scotland are now reaching hegemony in the devolved institutions by implementing and supporting social democratic measures, stepping back from the neo-liberalism of New Labour.

The response to this from the capitalist press is to announce with outrage that inequalities in funding under the Barnett Formula allow this to take place, but to whisper that to increase the free provision of healthcare, etc., is simply not possible. In other words, their intention is not to see reforms that are beneficial to working class people implemented in England, but to see the reversal of these gains.

And there is a problem here – for as the former Prime Minister Tony Blair admitted before his departure, the Barnett Formula has been retained because it holds the union together. If funding is levelled down in Scotland in the next few years, the nationalist-led Scottish government would have a stronger case for independence.

The concept of England as a nation is unfamiliar to many English socialists, just as it is often imprecise for people in England. Socialist organisations encourage members to study the history of the working class internationally, often neglecting to examine and learn from the history of the working class in England, its radical traditions, and its struggle for political representation.

Just as the labour movement remains tied to the Labour Party, despite New Labour being recognized by workers as the party of capital, socialists in England (and some in Scotland and Wales) remain attached to the notion that the working class will come to power through the maintenance of the United Kingdom.

I hope that this will change, and that English socialists will come to realize that devolution completely rules out a multinational road to socialism and that devolution in England, far from being an irrelevant or reactionary development, would actually empower working people across the world.

19 Responses to “What England means to me”

  1. toque Says:

    Good stuff Charlie – but I only found it on a google search.

  2. charliemarks Says:

    Oh. I did send it to you. Must’ve gone wrong – always does, its like computers have it in for me.

  3. toque Says:

    No, I didn’t get it.

    Send it to gpy1973@yahoo.co.uk

  4. charliemarks Says:

    Okay, then. Done. Or at least, attempted!

  5. Noel Says:

    Really really good post!

  6. charliemarks Says:

    Why thank you Noel, I am rather proud of it myself.

  7. M Anderson Says:

    “Organisations encourage members to study the history of the working class internationally…neglecting to examine and learn from the history of the working class in England, its radical traditions, and its struggle for political representation.”

    That is why socialism is a joke. As an idea it claims to represent all working people. This is a lie. You can’t claim to follow an idea that claims this then leave people you don’t like out of the equation. Also, England has had many fighters that believed in the common people. So-called socialists should be screaming from the rooftops about these people, but they aren’t. Why not? Most “English” socialists are not English! They don’t care about England.

    “…socialists in England remain attached to the notion that the working class will come to power through the maintenance of the United Kingdom.”

    Why? The UK is a political invention. It is not, and has never been, a country! Socialists of every nationality should be up in arms about the UK! The UK is oppressing the English working class. So, why aren’t you up in arms?
    Socialists have no credibility at all.

  8. charliemarks Says:

    As for English socialists up in arms about England – in the English blogosphere there’s myself and Andy Newman of Socialist Unity…

    Let’s not forget that Tony Benn, former MP and England’s most famous living socialist, said the following over fifteen years ago:

    “England is also entitled to its own cultural and political identity. The cultural identity of the English has been submerged by a history of dominating the United Kingdom and the world, such that the common people of England have been persuaded that in return for status as subjects of a King or Queen-Emperor, they somehow shared the glory of that Empire. In fact England, like Scotland and Wales is the colony that never secured its own liberation from that monarchical power.”

    So the reason why more socialists aren’t up in arms? Perhaps it’s because like the rest of the English we have been taught that we are “British”, that we must celebrate “Britishness”.

    Things will change, I am sure of that.

  9. Daniel Owen Says:

    Remember, political revolutions means exactly sod all without a social revolution. As James Connolly warned his fellow republicans, Ireland would never be free until it could break away from the yoke of capitalism and imperialism.

    An “independent” England still in the hands of international finance and big business isn’t really independent. And a statist and capitalist England isn’t free either.

    We need decentralisation, “direct democracy”, free association, and federalism. Political self-rule and economic self-management.

  10. Daniel Owen Says:

    Voting will never change anything, either. Power comes from muscle and sweat, not ballots, “debate” and lobbying.

    Parliamentary democracy is the paradise of which unscrupulous financiers dream, as Georges Sorel once said. And you’re not likely to get rid of the State if you take Statist routes. Means and ends, means and ends….

  11. Daniel Owen Says:

    I’m not a Marxist, but I agree with old Karl when he wrote that: “The working class cannot simply lay hold on the ready-made State machinery and wield it for their own purpose. The political instrument of their enslavement cannot serve as the political instrument of their emancipation.”

  12. charliemarks Says:

    On the state, sure the working class can’t rule through the capitalist state but it’d be foolish to neglect electoral intervention. Marx was talking about the Paris Commune of 1871 in that quote – if you recall the Commune was the municipal government which during the siege of Paris became a parliament of the popular masses with delegates subject to recall and paid the average workers’ wage.

    I agree with you about the need for direct democracy – the recent referendum in Hungary (in which the majority voted against unpopular “reforms” in healthcare and education) demonstrated that when the vote is on policies and not personalities, it’s possible to successfully register disconent at neoliberal policies.

  13. Dave (The Void) Says:

    So the reason why more socialists aren’t up in arms? Perhaps it’s because like the rest of the English we have been taught that we are “British”, that we must celebrate “Britishness”.

    Or because we reject both British nationalism and English nationalism, along with the very concept of the nation. The Diggers, the Chartists, the Suffragettes are indeed to be celebrated, but they had nothing to do with the nation.

    Socialists in England should put the case for English workers to support Scots and Welsh demands for independence precisely because in the confrontation between Scots and Welsh workers and the British nation-state it is important for us to side with the former against the latter.

    Socialists in Scotland and Wales can support or oppose seccession depending on circumstances (in practice, I would suggest critical support according to the principle of the united front, recognising that independence/devolution is supported by many as a way to acheive reformism in Scotland and Wales in the face of an effectively Tory govt in Westminster), but this is a strategic decision and they are not honour bound to support it on principle.

    But in England it’s starker, England is the dominant country in the union, references to “British” culture or history always means “English”, and the union jack and the St. George’s cross are used interchangeably. There’s nothing in English nationalism for us to support, even critically; we have to undermine nationalism and argue for international solidarity.

    Seriously Charlie that dot.eng website you link to is reactionary to the core (a corner of the internet that remains forever England, honestly?).

  14. charliemarks Says:

    I’ve not looked at the site for a long time – didn’t seem dodgy around six months ago…

  15. Two things learned recently « England Left Forward Says:

    […] and an Anglophile.  Having discovered the blog, and reading the entries, especially his essay for What England Means To Me, I feel both happy and sad.  Happy that there was another blogger out there who thinks the same as […]

  16. a246096 Says:

    246096 beers on the wall. sck was here

  17. christmas gifts for 2011 Says:

    Useful information. Lucky me I discovered your web site accidentally, and I am shocked why this twist of fate did not came about earlier! I bookmarked it.

  18. sax russell Says:

    i am so jealous of the SNP! England needs its own left-wing nationalist party.

    PS top-notch blog!

  19. Cecilia Englade Says:

    A lot of what you say is astonishingly accurate and that makes me wonder the reason why I hadn’t looked at this in this light previously. This particular article really did switch the light on for me personally as far as this particular subject goes. However at this time there is just one point I am not necessarily too comfy with and whilst I attempt to reconcile that with the actual core idea of the position, let me observe just what the rest of the visitors have to point out.Very well done.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: