Is this the end of social democracy? [article about the BNP and the working-class]

[Espanol Battalion]

From today's The Guardian
Is this the end of social democracy?
The BNP is capitalising on the fear and anger caused by the cultural destruction of the working class

Jonathan Rutherford

The BNP is filling the political vacuum left by New Labour's abandonment of the working class. In core Labour constituencies like Dagenham, Rainham and the new Morley and Outwood constituency it poses a direct electoral threat. Mainstream opinion argues that BNP successes are about economic deprivation and migrants being blamed for taking scarce resources like housing. But the problem goes deeper. The current successes of the BNP are a symptom of the historical changes in Britain's class system.

In Labour heartlands there is a powerful feeling of being dispossessed. As one BNP supporter, who appears on a YouTube video puts it, "the majority of our policies, if you bother to read them, veer toward socialism. We are probably the old Labour party in essence. We care about the working class people." She points across to a counter-demonstration and says, "When some of those people stand over there and tell me I have no rights ... I have blood and I have history on this soil and that's what I'll fight to defend."

Paranoid it may be, but the BNP is capitalising on the fear and anger caused by the cultural destruction of the working class. Capitalism is destroying class relations and recreating them around new kinds of production and consumption. Deindustrialisation has left large sections of the working class unemployable or working as if they are a reserve army of labour. Millions are economically inactive, or working in casualised and temporary jobs.

Life continues in this time of dislocation and destructive change, but the cultural symbols and institutions that once gave it meaning are disappearing. Those who flourished in the old class culture find themselves ill-equipped to deal with the new uncertainties. A people subjected to cultural destruction lose the means to defend themselves against more dominant cultures that seek to redescribe them. Media representation of the working class has become unremittingly negative with its images of chavs, feral children, obese men and women, teenage mothers, drunken brawling and the pursuit of mindless hedonism. The BNP draws its strength from this currency of cultural humiliation.

To lose a way of life is to lose a sense of hopefulness. It is this loss that provides the BNP with its political agenda. Its racism and blaming of migrants resonates with the insecurities of large numbers of people who feel that they live as strangers outside the community. By promoting culture wars around race, gender and religion it constructs boundaries of identity that define a sense of belonging and entitlement. Its sentimental nostalgia feeds a cultural melancholy in which the past always glows brightly as a better place. At a recent meeting in Dagenham, BNP leader Nick Griffin eulogised the bucolic days of his childhood in Barking, contrasting them to the loss of childhood in our dangerous, insecure times.

The cultural destruction of the working class threatens the existence of the Labour party itself. Not only because of the intense anger at its abandonment of a people in need of political representation, but also because the class and its institutions which once supported it are fragmenting and disappearing. In many of its heartland constituencies, party branches exist in name only. The politics of class are realigning in a way that is threatening the future of social democracy. The BNP is the warning light flashing danger.

Exactly 50 years ago the socialist writer Raymond Williams published a short essay called Culture is Ordinary. It begins with an elegy to his working-class boyhood in the farming valleys of the Black Mountains and the generations of his family who had lived there. Williams describes a way of life that emphasised neighbourhood, mutual obligation and common betterment. He belonged to a class that gave him his personal resilience and social anchorage. It gave him a culture and political representation through the Labour party and a trade union movement.

Williams knew that culture was shaped by the underlying system of production. He recalls how from the mountains he could look south to the "flare of the blast furnace making a second sunset". He wrote at a time when his class was already undergoing momentous change, but he could not have imagined the day when there would be no second sunset and the system of production that had shaped his class and culture was turned into scrap. After that, what would come next? It is a question we are now faced with.

[Bilan]

I don't see how that proved the end of Social Democracy, but I think it gave a good analysis of what the BNP and fascists are capitalising on in Britain.

[Tower of Bebel]

Social-democracy suffered a historic defeat in 1914, and was historicaly obsolete when the international revolution emerged a few years later. This article is no talking about social democracy of that time. I think it is referring to (what I call) social-liberalism (New Labour for example). This political current already suffered an important defeat when neoliberalism became rooted in the world's international labour policy. And indeed, if the BNP and other populist parties succeed it will be the end of social-liberalism too.

[Zurdito]

hmmm

The far right was probably biggest in post-war Britain in the 1970's, before widespread deindustrialisation,when the workign class was pretty strong, and where there was higher employment than would be seen throughout the 1980's, and when emplyoment was more secure, stable and regulated than it is now, and when wages made up a much higher percentage of the GDP than they do today.

Back then, the much more militant and right-wing National Front was much bigger than the stagnant BNP is today, and they could actually mobilise large numers, while the BNP can only get votes at best.

I think this article itself suffers from the postmodernist, bleak, "atomisation", "end of history" hopelessness which it projects onto the working class.

In reality, I think Trotsky's definition remains correct. The 1970's were a time of huge labour militancy, and the far right grew accordingly, as it always does in times when the labour movement is strong, because it is a last resort of the bourgoeisie to fight the labour movement through demagogic pseudo-socialist promises which tie workers to "national capital".

In reality the BNP is less unpopular today than it was 10 years ago because it runs in elections not as an openly fascist party, but as a patriotic, right-wing anti-immigration party. Seeing as we've had Labour in govt. for eyars who have a reputationf or beign "soft" on these issues, and seeign as the Tories have been weak, people have turned to the watered down surrent programme of the BNP (which is basically UKIPish) as a substitute for the same kind of hard-line law and order policies which Thatcher used to implement (and the 1980's certainly were a time of mass disillusionment, defeat for the working class, and destruction of working clas communities, but the BNP and NF actually declined significantly during that era as comapred to the 1970's).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade Rakunin, thank you for adding one more term to my vocabulary (bashing the "social-democrats" of today).

What's worse about this is indeed the class makeup of BNP-like parties' leadership and rank-and-file: they're NOT petit-bourgeois, like what Trotsky said, but working-class, like what Kautsky inadvertently predicted:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/would-you-account-t79865/index2.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/simplification-class-relations-t73419/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-movements-t78942/index.html

[BobKKKindle$]

Back then, the much more militant and right-wing National Front was much bigger than the stagnant BNP is today, and they could actually mobilise large numers, while the BNP can only get votes at best.It is wrong to characterize the the BNP as "stagnant" because the BNP has been able to attain success in recent elections, most notably the election of a candidate to the London Assembly, and there is no reason to believe that this success has reached its peak or will start to decline in the near future, in the absence of an effective alternative which is able to engage with the demands of working people. The BNP has been able to survive a split (a separate organizations under the name "Real BNP" was formed following accusations that the party has betrayed its founding principles) and the conditions which have supported the BNP's sucess (primarily the rightwards movement of the Labour party) continue to exist. The BNP's electoral success far exceeds that enjoyed by the NF.

A clear distinction should be made between the strategy of the National Front, and the BNP. The strategy of the BNP is based on making it seem as if the party is more respectable than other fascist organizations, or those which have existed in the past. This has enabled the party to move beyond the stereotypical image of fascism (violent street demonstrations, gangs of skinhead youths who attack migrants, etc.) and present itself as a credible alternative to the other party organizations which have grown complacent and have ignored the demands of the electorate. Arguably this makes the BNP even more dangerous than the National Front, even if the BNP does not have the same visual presence, because it makes people more likely to vote for the BNP. However, despite this change of outwards appearance, the BNP is fundamentally a fascist organization, and has adopted ideas which seem less racist to legitimize ethnic discrimination.

[Holden Caulfield]

I think this article itself suffers from the postmodernist, bleak, "atomisation", "end of history" hopelessness which it projects onto the working class.


well the spread of the fascism in the working class in the UK gives me such feeling, 10% of the voting population of my city voted BNP, and there is not one 'leftist' party,

if that isnt bleak what is?

[Zurdito]

It is wrong to characterize the the BNP as "stagnant" because the BNP has been able to attain success in recent elections, most notably the election of a candidate to the London Assembly, and there is no reason to believe that this success has reached its peak or will start to decline in the near future, in the absence of an effective alternative which is able to engage with the demands of working people. The BNP has been able to survive a split (a separate organizations under the name "Real BNP" was formed following accusations that the party has betrayed its founding principles) and the conditions which have supported the BNP's sucess (primarily the rightwards movement of the Labour party) continue to exist. The BNP's electoral success far exceeds that enjoyed by the NF.

A clear distinction should be made between the strategy of the National Front, and the BNP. The strategy of the BNP is based on making it seem as if the party is more respectable than other fascist organizations, or those which have existed in the past. This has enabled the party to move beyond the stereotypical image of fascism (violent street demonstrations, gangs of skinhead youths who attack migrants, etc.) and present itself as a credible alternative to the other party organizations which have grown complacent and have ignored the demands of the electorate. Arguably this makes the BNP even more dangerous than the National Front, even if the BNP does not have the same visual presence, because it makes people more likely to vote for the BNP. However, despite this change of outwards appearance, the BNP is fundamentally a fascist organization, and has adopted ideas which seem less racist to legitimize ethnic discrimination.

Well I think the BNP is hitting a glass cieling of sorts, it's not growing any more. In a crisis it may, and so will the left, as we would expect. It's survived one split, but there are more profound divides between the "respectable" recruits and the fascist core such as Griffin and Collett. I think unless it's going to become compeltely ossified, we will see more fighting and perhaps splits between those camps. For example many BNP councillors quit soon after being elected when they find out the BNP's true politics.

The fact that the BNP is electorally successful doesn't mean that fascism is more of a threat today than it was in the 1970's. The BNP has, as we seem to agree, gained success through effectively taking on the characteristics of an electoral front - it's programme in elections is not expllicitly fascist. Most of their voters are standard "patriotic" anti-immigration, anti-europe, pro- law and order voters. Most are not fascists, as int hey do not support the forcible crushing of the labour movement - and the majority are not white uspremacists.

Holden Cuadlfied - yes that's a sad statistic, and one thing is the fact that the labour movement has suffered 30 years of defeats in the UK and is therefore weak right now. But it's not like most of those voters are really more right-wing than standard right-wing tories. "Fascism" hasn't grown, the BNP has just learnt to hide its fascism. So I really don't think the premise of the article holds up.

[Espanol Battalion]

Dear Comrades


To build upon Jonathan Rutherford’s article, find below two more articles. The first (from the New Statesman) is by Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham, on the need to stem the appeal of the BNP amongst the working-class. The second (from an anti-fascist blog) critiques/questions UAF’s lack of political engagement with working-class populations and areas, precisely the constituency the BNP has re-orientated itself towards.

The rise of the far right - Jon Cruddas and Nick Lowles

The New Labour project relied on the assumption that its traditional support had nowhere else to go. But this is now changing, and the BNP has emerged as one beneficiary

Media coverage of the London elections focused, inevitably, on the victory of Mayor Boris. But even with a close-fought race pushing up turnout to a new high, the slow rise of the BNP continued as they gained a foothold in the London Assembly. This should not merely be a cause for concern, but for us to reflect on how our own party can respond.

The BNP polled 5.3 per cent across London and averaged 13.9 per cent in the 642 council wards it contested around the country. It now has 55 councillors and poses a serious threat across several regions in next year's European elections, not to mention the mayoral election taking place in Stoke-on-Trent next year.

There are some who still think that the BNP is a flash in the pan that will disappear as quickly as it emerged. But we are facing a shift in British politics. Traditional voting patterns are fragmenting as voters shop around for a party that best articulates their concerns and even prejudices. The emergence of the BNP is just one consequence of this change.

Labour's support among its working-class electoral base has been shrinking for many years, and this goes well beyond the recent decline in the government's fortunes. In many areas, Labour's support among the working-class C2DE demographics was at a lower level in the 2005 general election victory than in the crushing defeat of 1983. Since then, support among these groups has further disintegrated.

Some of these disappearing voters switched to other parties. In local elections this was often the Liberal Democrats, but far greater numbers simply stayed at home.

For the Labour leadership, this long-term shift caused only moderate concern. It is a truism that general elections are not won or lost in the Labour heartlands but in the swing marginals, where a few votes can turn success into defeat. It is towards these voters that the major parties have calibrated their language, tactics and policy.

The New Labour project relied on the assumption that its traditional support, although declining, had nowhere else to go. But this is now changing, and the BNP has emerged as one beneficiary. The party received more votes last month than Labour in seats such as Dagenham and Rainham in east London and the new Morley and Outwood constituency in West Yorkshire.

But we cannot view the BNP in isolation. In other areas, such as south Yorkshire and South Wales, it has become represented by the rise of local independents. Who would have thought that Labour could have lost the former heartlands of Merthyr Tydfil and Blaenau Gwent? In Stoke-on-Trent, a city where ten years ago Labour held all 60 seats, it was this year able to win only four wards. In Barnsley, where the BNP polled 21 per cent, the Barnsley Independent Group holds a third of the seats on the council.

This trend reflects a more fundamental shift than midterm blues. An increasing number of traditional Labour voters believe that the party no longer reflects their interests. This is in no small measure a result of new Labour's triangulation tactic - a deliberate shift to what the political class thinks is the "centre ground". It is also a symptom of a failure to prioritise grass-roots activism at the local level, instead flirting with the "virtual party" and delivering messages through centralised marketing. The danger is not only that we ignore the reasons for the strength of the BNP, but that in so doing we reinforce the very conditions that have created it.

Despite the generally benign economic climate of recent years, many of the people now turning their back on Labour have not shared in this economic prosperity. Swaths of these voters not only feel ignored but have been persuaded that the BNP articulates their interests.

Race is obviously the vehicle through which the BNP galvanises support but the party also articulates the frustration of many voters and seeks to provide them with a new sense of belonging. As politicians remove class as a social, economic and political category, the BNP seeks to insert race.

It is no coincidence that the BNP is doing best in those communities, often overwhelmingly white, where there has been the greatest economic change, such as the former coalfields and car manufacturing areas. For too long a basic formula has underscored much New Labour thinking - a counterbalancing of so-called aspirational, Middle-England swing voters with our traditional supporters. Its adherents have remained tone deaf to both the aspirations and insecurities of those who fall outside this tight political calculus.

Ministers' rhetoric of "aspiration" fails to address the real aspirations of voters across huge tracts of the political landscape, where even decent housing or good jobs are in too short supply. So our language, policies and tactics all fail to hit the mark.

All this represents a fundamental shift in British politics, and the real danger is that we are heading the way of many continental countries where large segments of the working class have broken with their traditional centre-left parties and moved to the right, often the far right.

The Labour Party always had a mission of emancipatory economic and social change but to many it feels like we have lost our traditional purpose or even identity. The economic downturn, the credit crunch, the housing collapse and rising living costs will only increase material insecurities over the next few years.

There is still time to move in a different direction but without a radical and immediate change Britain, and in particular Labour, could fall victim to the same political rupture that has already shaken much of modern Europe.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Great Rock & Roll Swindle

What's all this then? Not wanting to go on another Stop The War/Ban The Bomb/Stop The Nazis march?

Well, no. As much as protest is a valid and valuable way of stopping the BNP it is not and must not be the only way. In fact, it cannot be, because it just does not work on it's own.

The BNP will only be beaten by actually challenging their message with ours, and sadly with a large dollop of pragmatism.

The BNP is a party building itself up on the backs of the disenfranchised white working class. There is no point denying it.

Rock concerts to teenagers too young to vote-indeed as was the case at Victoria Park-not even told to vote- (the gig was held after the closing date to register even)is a postive way of building a progressive movement for the future. It was however, no substitute for the genuine hard work actually being done where the BNP was both strong, and where there was a large BME vote waiting to be galvanised.

But, sadly, in the case of the current UAF/LMHR swindle on the antiracist movement in case you have not realised it folks, the horse has somewhat already bolted. What is the point of marching in protest to city hall when there will not even be anyone in??

Searchlight's Nick Lowles has already dealt with the dissapointment of the BNP's election breakthrough here and here It's quite sobering reading. We might not all agree on his entire analysis' but it's probably more than just hitting the proverbial nail on the head: He's given it brain damage here and here.

Still however, the UAF insist that marching alongside floats on a Saturday afternoon to an empty building to make an empty gesture will defeat the BNP.

And yes although marches are nice, good fun etc, etc you have to wonder why when there are two council elections being held in outer East London where the BNP has very good chances of winning, the UAF are having a march instead through the centre of London to protest against one already elected BNP official.

Why are the UAF not going to actually join trade unionists and anti-fascists in actually doing some hard graft and trying to actually stop the BNP in the areas where they are standing, some 7 or so miles from where the UAF are having their march?

This is not the first time the UAF have been called into question. GMB steward Sam Tarry has attacked the UAF twice in the past month for their lack of campaigning during the elections.

In a recent interview on the Islam Channel Tarry told the viewers that the £400,000 spent by LMHR and UAF to hold their undersubscribed activity at Victoria Park, could have actually have been spent on employing eight full time anti-BNP organisers instead.

Further, in an article in Labour Briefing, Tarry claimed that the UAF had not put out any literature during the election campaign other than materials advertising their concert. Again, a concert where nobody was told to vote, and where the large majority were possibly not even registered.

This lack of voter registration is an enormous worry, something with planning and of course common sense, that the UAF could have addressed but did not.

In the latest edition of Socialist Worker, UAF joint secretary Weyman Benette goes some way in explaining why the UAF cannot and do not engage with voters who may well be voting BNP.

Weyman says:

United we will smash the Nazi BNP

Who will, and how? Well suggests Weyman, the SWP of course. "The BNP trades on whipping up fear and creating scapegoats out of immigrants and ethnic minorities".

He certainly agrees with Mr Lowles on that, then. Then he goes on "It’s important to tackle these lies. But there are deeper reasons for why the BNP is attracting so many votes. One is the fact that the mainstream parties have significantly less local involvement and engagement than they once had".

I agree. So how are the lies being told in Barking and Dagenham and in the two elections currently being held actually being addressed by a march in central London? He doesn't answer. But he does continue..."The BNP has exploited this political vacuum to present itself as some kind of political alternative. We need to expose their claims on this front too." Erm, could you be a bit more clearer Weyman, it reads to me like you're not really confident that you can engage on these issues yourself. So come on, HOW WILL YOU DO THIS EXACTLY?


"..we need to mobilise this anti-fascist majority. That means getting ordinary people out in their thousands – like at the Love Music Hate Racism (LMHR) carnival back in April, or on this Saturday’s demonstration"

BUT WEYMAN, THE PEOPLE VOTING FOR THE BNP LIES AND MYTHS WILL NOT BE AT YOUR MARCH. THEY'LL BE AT HOME READING LEAFLETS PUTTING THESE ARGUMENTS TO THEM!

He gets even better...."We have to challenge the Nazis where they are trying to build a base." This he can obviously do from a march in central London and not in the constituencies where the BNP is actually standing!!

He goes on to even claim the "BNP want another Nazi Holocaust." Is he totally mad? Has he ever knocked on the doors of Mr and Mrs Smith who are voting for the BNP. Try telling them that, when all they want is whichever ridiculous pot of gold the BNP has made quite accessible to them by simply putting out leaflets.

Running around shouting "Nazi" and "Fascist" is becoming a little bit long in the tooth. Rather like this great drain on the resources of the many genuine and decent people inside and out of the UAF, wanting to genuinally fight the BNP.

UAF & LMHR?

Just another Great Rock and Roll swindle.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Actually, contrast the BNP's example in the UK with the NDP's example in Germany. If there's a credible leftist alternative to the mainstream parties, the far-right equivalent will struggle to maintain decreasing support.

If the LibDems actually replace Labour as the "center-left" party, a leftward shift in Labour could indeed be at the expense of the BNP.



I agree with the second article, in terms of pointing out the bankruptcy of both New Left tactics and the classical Trotskyist analysis of "petit-bourgeois" far-rightism.

[Tower of Bebel]

I agree with the second article, in terms of pointing out the bankruptcy of both New Left tactics and the classical Trotskyist analysis of "petit-bourgeois" far-rightism.
What is the "Trotskyist analysis of "petit-bourgeois" far-rightism"? Does it also affect Trotsky's analysis of fascism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Yep - "neo-fascism" is a working-class phenomenon, as per my three links above in response to you. :)

[spartan]

Those were two really good articles Espanol Battalion thanks for posting them.

The fact that the BNP are doing well in run down formerly industrial towns where Old Labour governed without any opposition for half a century, shows me that people are crying out for a mainstream left party which we haven't had ever since Old Labour transformed itself into free market loving New Labour just to get elected.

Some people might think it odd that a far-right party is gaining where a left wing party has left behind but this is because of the BNP's Populist economic policies like cooperatives, "British jobs for British workers", etc which are designed to attract the working class British voters (Many of whom have seen the traditional industries privatised, their jobs given to immigrants, killed off and/or shipped abroad).


If the LibDems actually replace Labour as the "center-left" party, a leftward shift in Labour could indeed be at the expense of the BNP.

I hope that if this scenario does indeed happen it would be at the expense of parties like the BNP.

Hopefully the trade unions will be able to hold cash strapped Labour to ransom and only give Labour money if they promise to shift more to the left on their policies and if these policies benefit the working class (Which will be sorely needed in this time of a looming economic crises).

It's hard to believe that Labour was once the party of Hardie, Bevan, Atlee and Benn.

[Holden Caulfield]

Phoney Benn is a legend,

Benn is still in it though: Hilary Benn, and younger cant remember her name Benn,

Lord Anthony must be so proud, of his family

[Tower of Bebel]

^^^ Yep - "neo-fascism" is a working-class phenomenon, as per my three links above in response to you. :)

What makes you believe that the petit-bourgeois roots of fascism are gone? These types of electoral succes maybe?

Fascism before world war two was more than just electoral breakthroughs of fascists parties. Growing fascism also dealt with small battle groups made out of lumpenproles and petit-bourgeois elements. It also dealt with polarisation between left and right. Today we only see the raise of fascism at the ballot box because of populism, not because of extreme polarisation (since most workers who vote fascist actually vote populist or leftist as they can't see the difference between a real workers' party and a fascist party), not because of outright support for fascism, but become of confusion (all parties are the same anyway).
You don't see small battle groups made out of workers. You don't see mass demonstrations made out of workers. Most who vote fascist don't support it in public or don't even know what they have to support anyway.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ That, comrade, is why I said this:


I agree with the second article, in terms of pointing out the bankruptcy of both New Left tactics and the classical Trotskyist analysis of "petit-bourgeois" far-rightism.

Far-rightism encompasses more than just either "old-style fascism" or "neo-fascism." It also encompasses "right populism." Indeed, the NDP in Germany is struggling because of the alternative provided by the Left party. Without a similar alternative in the UK at present (as long as the LibDems aren't one of the TWO mainstream parties), workers have no choice but to turn to the BNP.

Also, consider the BNP's leader. In my discussion with Bobkindles, he insisted that the guy was "petit-bourgeois," yet his teaching background indicates very much a working-class background.

[Revolutiondownunder]

So is it the fault of the Labour party or is it the fault of the revolutionary left?

If a genuine workers alternative had been created in Britain around the same time as the BNP modernisation [from what I can see about 9-10 years ago] woul it have had the wins that the BNP have had?:confused:

[redSHARP]

where are these fuckers most active?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Comrade Rakunin, I would like to quote Karl Kautsky once more. "Old-style fascism" wasn't a reaction to the very little (if any) immigration of dark-skinned workers to the "white" countries. Naturally, the petit-bourgeoisie were the driving force of "old-style fascism."

Unfortunately, Trotsky's "analysis" is irrelevant to the modern world:

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1892/erfurt/ch05.htm


Very differently from the apprentice or the merchant is the modern proletarian torn loose from the soil. He becomes a citizen of the world; the whole world is his home.

No doubt this world-citizenship is a great hardship for the workers in countries where the standard of living is high and the conditions of labor are comparatively good. In such countries, naturally, immigration will exceed emigration. As a result the laborers with the higher standard of living will be hindered in their class-struggle by the influx of those with a lower standard and less power of resistance.

Under certain circumstances this sort of competition, like that of the capitalists, may lead to a new emphasis on national lines, a new hatred of foreign workers on the part of the native born. But the conflict of nationalities, which is perpetual among the capitalists, can be only temporary among the proletarians. For sooner or later the workers will discover that the immigration of cheap labor-power from the more backward to the more advanced countries, is as inevitable a result of the capitalist system as the introduction of machinery or the forcing of women into industry.

In still another way does the labor movement of an advanced country suffer under the influence of the backward conditions of other lands. The high degree of exploitation endured by the proletariat of the economically undeveloped nations becomes an excuse for the capitalists of the more highly developed ones for opposing any movement in the direction of higher wages or better conditions.

In more than one way, then, it is borne in upon the workers of each nation that their success in the class-struggle is dependent on the progress of the working-class of other nations. For a time this may turn them against foreign workers, but finally they come to see that there is only one effective means of removing the hindering influence of backward nations: to do away with the backwardness itself. German workers have every reason to co-operate with the Slavs and Italians in order that these may secure higher wages and a shorter working-day; the English workers have the same interest in relation to the Germans, and the Americans in relation to Europeans in general.