Revival of the public's struggle for independence

The Socialist Party's message in the parliamentary elections on September 25, 2021: Fifth offer to voters presented on June 17:THE PUBLIC'S STRUGGLE FOR INDEPENDENCE REVIVED

Nothing is more beautiful in our history than the uprising of the disenfranchised in the latter half of the nineteenth century. How the common people managed to break their chains and begin their struggle for equality, justice, and human dignity for all people.

The impact of that uprising on the shaping of society in the first half of the twentieth century will be an inspiration for the common people for a long future. Common people, who were completely disenfranchised 150 years ago, without voting rights, freedom of expression or association, without the right to decide where they lived or for whom they worked, without income and property, in reality rightless slaves; rose up and built a movement to fight for justice, equality, and humanity. This struggle gave rise to universal suffrage and political movements that served the interests of the public and not just the interests of the upper class, it gave rise to trade unions that led the struggle of the common people for equality, justice, and a decent livelihood and it gave rise to the freedom struggle of women, children, disabled people, pensioners, homosexuals, and other oppressed groups. In just two or three generations, the Icelandic common people managed to transform their position in society, from being without any rights to having every opportunity to shape society according to their own interests, expectations, and hopes.

But this story is not over. This is evident, for example, in the fact that it is not told in this way in schools or in the speeches of those in power. There, the story of the chieftains who are said to have granted rights to the people, and of wealthy individuals who are said to have brought prosperity, technology, and progress to people, is told. And despite many victories, the common people still live within the narrative of the chieftains and under the oppression of the few, rich, and powerful. Although the public has gained rights far beyond what slaves of previous centuries enjoyed and living standards have improved, no complete victory has been won. The public still lives under the class oppression of an unjust society, having to accept that almost all decisions about the future and development of society are made to serve capital.

And it can also be argued that the public has lost much of what it fought for in previous years. Then the struggle was about building up the democratic platform as a power against the overwhelming power of wealth. It was the public's path to justice, to build power on the basis of universal suffrage as a counterweight to the inequality of wealth, which distorts and corrupts everything. In the past decades of neoliberalism, the democratic platform has been weakened, and decisions, assets, resources, and power have been moved to the so-called market, the playground of the few and wealthy. The shaping of society is no longer a common task for all the public, but rather what pays off for capital is to decide the future of the rest of us. The future is then no longer the common property of all of us, but rather the task of the few rich and powerful.

And that is precisely why socialists want to revive the public's struggle for independence. Hope has weakened, and the future of justice and equality has receded. That must not happen. Without strong dreams of a good future, without hope for equality, and without a struggle for justice, society will continue to unravel.

It is therefore a prerequisite for all progress to revive the public's struggle for independence.

Economic foundation of society

Apart from increased civil rights, the biggest victory in the public's struggle for independence in the last century was the extension of the fishing jurisdiction to allow the resources' yield to build a good society. At the beginning of the last century, the catch of Icelandic ships and boats was only 1/3 of the fish caught off the coast of Iceland, but by the end of the century, all fish were caught by Icelandic ships and boats. Without the struggle for the extension of the fishing jurisdiction, Icelandic society would not have managed to develop from one of Europe's poorer regions into one of the most prosperous.

The development of the fishing industry alongside the extension of the territorial waters was characterized by an active employment policy of the government and social operation. The big steps were taken when socialists were in government; employment development during the innovation government at the end of the war, the extension of the jurisdiction to 12 miles during the left-wing government of 1956-58 and then a further extension to 50 miles and the stern trawlerization during the left-wing government of 1971-74. The largest part of the development was through socially operated companies, municipal fishing companies, and cooperatives.

With these measures, communities were built up around the country. It then happened with the quota system and the transfer of fishing rights that the resource came under the control of a few fishing companies who reversed this development, broke down the communities that had previously been built up and transferred the profits, which had previously flowed through society, into their own pockets.

The Icelandic common people, who had fought for the extension of the jurisdiction and built up the fishing industry and communities throughout the country, were deprived of the benefits of their struggle. The first step in the revival of the common people's struggle for independence must therefore be to reclaim control over the fishing jurisdiction from the hands of the fishing aristocracy, to wage the fourth Cod War to bring the marine resources under the nation so that they can become an economic foundation for a strong and just society and not just the unheard-of wealth of a few families.

The same applies to other resources. Energy should be used for community projects that strengthen and secure a good society. These goals are not achieved by commercializing energy companies and allowing private companies access to the resources. The resources are the common property of the nation and should be utilized for the benefit of all.

This will be best done by using them to build a society of equality and justice. That was what the common people's struggle for independence was about, to build a good society. Poor and powerless people understood well that the most desirable values were to live and work in a society where everyone enjoyed respect and recognition.

The struggle for this took place not least within companies, that company owners treated employees as equals and not as slaves or servants. That struggle must be revived because we will build neither an active democracy nor a good working life if people have to submit to the totalitarian rule of company owners as soon as they arrive at work.

It is part of the struggle for independence that employees gain more rights in the workplace, that staff sit on the boards of larger companies, that cooperative companies be increased and that it is ensured that companies consider the interests of staff, society, and the environment, and not only the interests of shareholders. Such is not only socially important in itself, strengthening democracy and equality, but such companies also possess greater resilience than those that only consider dividend payments to shareholders. Increased workplace democracy is therefore an economic measure to strengthen the economy.

Social foundation of the struggle

The public built up its power through collective strength and organized struggle. In light of its positive consequences, the state should promote the power and influence of the labor movement and other public organizations. Socialists therefore emphasize that labor legislation should be changed so that the power of trade unions increases and the opportunities for employees to push for wage increases and other rights, but no less to counter oppressive tendencies of company owners. For this, the labor movement must be able to take various actions in workplaces in cooperation with employees. This not only strengthens fighting spirit but also brings the struggle closer to the ground and thus distributes power within the labor movement.

The experience of an organized labor movement is good and can be transferred to other areas, transferring the lessons from the labor market to other markets where the public stands weak against the overwhelming power of wealth. The labor market was tamed by 0.7% of wage income flowing to the organized struggle of employees, to trade unions. That is a fee that has paid for itself many times over. Without trade unions, company owners would have all power in the labor market.

The power imbalance in other areas of society could be equalized in a similar way; that 0.7% of all rent would go to tenant organizations, that 0.7% of all interest would go to debtor organizations, that 0.7% of all insurance premiums would go to policyholder organizations, and so on. A strong public advocacy will not only protect people against usury, fraud, and oppression but also build a more decentralized and diverse society.

The same arrangement can be used for students, to take 0.7% of the interest from loans while student loan systems are in use and later a comparable percentage of student wages and invest in active advocacy for students. And in the same way, build rights organizations for pensioners and disabled people by contributing 0.7% of pensions to organized associations of these groups. Ways must be found to stimulate organized struggle for immigrants, children, women, and others in different ways.

All the most significant achievements in our society were built up by the organized struggle of the public in the last and penultimate centuries. We should learn from this history and do more of what has proven successful. Active democracy is built where the interests of the weaker are advanced, and that only happens if society promotes the organized struggle of the public.

Democratic foundation of society

In the decades after the public gained suffrage, politics transformed from the totalitarian rule of the bourgeoisie into what could be called popular politics. Public interest issues came onto the agenda; affordable and secure housing, free healthcare, education for all, job security, and so on. But as time went on, capital managed to gain control of the democratic platform. For a time, it seemed that the state would become the executive arm of the public, which the common people could wield against the oppressive power of wealth; but over time, much reverted to the old ways. Today, state power is used to maintain the power of the rich, increase their wealth, and transfer public assets and funds to them, no less than it was in the years before universal suffrage.

This is a real problem that we must face. Politics, which in earlier years were liberating for the common people, are today used to diminish the power of the public. Representative democracy has not become what was hoped for; Alþingi (Parliament) and local governments do not reflect society, and there is a lack of representatives for those who are most severely affected by the injustice of society. It is therefore necessary to democratize the state and its institutions, no less than to strengthen and empower public organizations.

There are many means to this end.

One is to randomly select a constitutional assembly that would regularly revise the constitution of the republic, the first of which would start with the constitutional council's bill from 2011, which was approved in a national referendum to be the basis of a new constitution. Through random selection, it would be ensured that the constitution was not set by parliament or a narrow elite but reflected the will of the vast majority of people. With this, the fundamental laws would be separated from the conflicts of daily politics. Experience has shown that Alþingi (Parliament) has been unable to carry out a comprehensive revision of the constitution or pass the constitutional council's bill. By Alþingi (Parliament) detaching itself from the process and entrusting a constitutional assembly with passing the constitutional council's bill, the deadlock in this matter can be resolved both more easily and sooner.

Various institutions can be moved away from political power, institutions that belong more to the nation than to the state. This applies, for example, to Ríkisútvarpið, national parks and natural and historical monuments, and Tryggingastofnun, to name a few examples. The management of these institutions can be elected directly by the people or by those the institution is meant to serve. The same can apply to schools and educational institutions, healthcare institutions, and more. Experiments can be made with a combination of elections and random selection so that the management of the neighborhood school accurately reflects the composition of the residents.

The goal of these changes is to decentralize power and bring it closer to the people, out to the neighborhoods and rural areas, out to interest groups and those most dependent on the service. And thereby reduce the power of capital and the elite.

The experience of expanding suffrage in the last century was good. Along with the public's advocacy in organized trade unions and other public organizations, the expansion of suffrage was a prerequisite for building a society that considered the needs of the public. Today, there are two groups that do not have the right to vote for Alþingi (Parliament); children under 18 years of age and immigrants without citizenship. By expanding suffrage, politics could be stimulated to consider the interests of these groups. And it's needed. The economic situation of families with children has fallen behind other age groups, and a relatively high proportion of immigrants among low-wage earners and tenants has led to the interests of these groups being less on the political agenda despite an urgent need for rights improvements.

Democracy will never be effective, and we will not succeed in creating a just society unless the focus is placed on improving the situation of those who are worst off. The elitization of politics and the increased power of the system at the expense of democracy work against these goals. It is one of the main tasks of today's politics to counteract this negative development of the democratic system.

Social foundation of the future

The main outcome of the common people's struggle for independence in the last century, in addition to higher wages, was the development of a healthcare system, school and educational institutions, social security, and other social measures that are necessary to build equality and justice. The wealthier can buy healthcare and education, but the less affluent cannot enjoy healthcare, education, or financial security unless systems are built that are open to all free of charge.

With this as a guiding principle, a healthcare and education system was built here in a short time, a foundation for a social housing system was laid, social security was established, and most of what is a prerequisite for a civilized society. After rapid development for several decades, it slowed down during the neoliberal era. Taxes on the rich were lowered, and the post-war social contract was effectively annulled; that people should pay taxes according to their ability and receive public services according to their needs. Instead of paying for medical services while people were healthy and in the workforce, taxes began to be collected from people when they fell ill. Instead of education being seen as a societal project, it was viewed as an investment by individuals, which it would be natural for them to pay for and then sell on the labor market. Instead of people paying taxes according to income but everyone receiving the same pension, a system was created that extended the class distinction of the labor market to the grave and death.

It is therefore not enough to reclaim the resources from the fishing aristocracy and the wealthy or to build up the common people's tools of struggle, but we must learn anew to talk about society among ourselves. Should we pick up the thread from the popular movements of previous generations and aim for a society that considers the needs of those who live with the greatest injustice and worst conditions or are we going to continue to base societal development on the needs of the wealthiest and most powerful?

This may sound like a simple question with an obvious answer, but unfortunately, societal values have given way so much under the inflated extreme individualism of the neoliberal years that we need to practice to regain our bearings.

One of neoliberalism's methods for success was to depoliticize all discourse. Instead of asking what we want with the healthcare system, we were told that what was available was limited, that we did not have enough funds to provide good service to everyone, but rather we would have to prioritize, cut back, accept that the system would always be limited and inadequate. Instead of ideals of justice and equality, questions arose about whether the funds should go to this item or the next. Hope no longer drove the development of society as it once did, politics was no longer a creative platform for the future country but a deterministic struggle with a built-in bad outcome.

Although the socialists' offer is characterized by clear proposals for action, we mention this here. If we want to build society according to our hopes and expectations, then we need to practice hoping, allow ourselves to dream big, and remind ourselves that we can go further than we perhaps dare to hope.

Socialism is optimistic in itself. Socialists believe that the public can build a just and good society. Centrists share with us the ideas of what a just and good society is, but they are not as optimistic, believing that we must settle for less. And the right-wing people are not only pessimistic but also have a dark view of human nature, believing that it is not in our nature to build justice or live with equality.

Socialists' offer: Revival of the public's struggle for independence

Iceland now stands at a crossroads at the end of a period that has been called neoliberalism. During that time, societal pillars were weakened, and some of the achievements gained through organized labor struggle in the last century were reversed. The infrastructure of society and key basic systems are now weak, and power imbalance has grown. Ahead are technological changes that, if left unchecked, will further increase the wealth and power of the few, but will leave the poorer and more powerless behind. And just as financialized capitalism has broken down societies, it has also so depleted natural resources that the future of humanity and biodiversity is at risk.

The socialists' offer to voters at this crossroads is to meet these threats with the collective strength of the public, with the aim that burdens will be distributed equally, but also benefits. Recent history shows us what the public is capable of if it succeeds in building solidarity within an organized struggle. Our grandfathers and grandmothers, great-grandfathers and great-grandmothers, began the struggle of the utterly destitute common people, people without rights or property who had nothing but the hope of a better society. These people managed to transform their position in society, improve their living standards and rights, and have a decisive impact on the shaping of society for the benefit of future generations.

We are those generations. Just as previous generations managed to transform Icelandic society through the public's struggle for independence, we will also succeed. They succeeded, and we will succeed too. And it is our debt to the people who fought the struggle in the last and penultimate centuries, to leave society in such a way that the position of the common people is much better when we hand over society than when it was entrusted to us.

The socialists' offer is about reclaiming the fishing jurisdiction from the hands of the fishing aristocracy, to utilize land and marine resources to build a more just society here, to strengthen the labor movement and ignite further public advocacy, to democratize the economy, to strengthen all democratic development of municipalities, state power, and public institutions, to combat elite politics with a randomly selected constitutional council and further democratic development and to set clear societal goals for all development of the infrastructure and basic systems of society.

The uniqueness of society in Iceland is that we are few in a large country with abundant resources. It is the public's resources that are truly the driving force of this society. We are therefore in a unique position to build a just society of equality and human dignity, a society that the common people of all times have yearned for.

That is what the socialists' offer for the revival of the public's struggle for independence is about; to awaken the dreams of the common people and make them come true.

Approved at a joint meeting of the executive and policy committees of the Socialist Party on the morning of June 17, 2021