Groups seeking to seize and hold power use words their own way in order to place their efforts in the best light. Take, for example, the term “nation.” The rulers of every government wish to present themselves not as a tiny clique which has taken power by force or by fraud, but as representatives a whole "nation"and authorised to speak for it. Historically, for a “nation” to arise there had to come first the development of private property, of social classes, rulers and ruled, masters and servants. First arose the state, the chief general system of control used by the ruling class against the subject classes, and the chief instrument of war and conquest. The state must have definite territorial boundaries. If there is no private property and war, there can be no state; if there is no state, there can be no “nation.” The state is not the product of the “nation,” the “nation” is the product of the state.
National states did not exist before or under feudalism, for feudal conditions were not conducive to the development of large national communities. The feudal states were united by virtue of who ruled them, regardless of “national” considerations. The power was vested in the king, not in the nation. For example, in the Hundred Years’ War, the French vassals of the King of England naturally fought against the King of France. The feudal States were run by a given clan or kindred of a tribe that had become differentiated into masters and serfs bound to the land owned by the ruling family. Feudal states, in their backward economic relations, were unable to be national states and could evolve so only when capitalism, with its markets, commerce, money and corresponding development of the circulation and production of commodities, could unify the country.
It was modern capitalism that brought about a closer connection between different parts of a country and different sections of the population. Capitalism was the powerful integrating force that broke down the barriers of feudalism, concentrated masses of people in big industrial centers, connected the countryside with the towns and produced the middle class of petty merchants and traders which, in the beginning, became the main representatives and proponents of the new idea of nationality. Therefore, the origin of modern nations was closely connected with the bourgeois-democratic revolutions, which destroyed the isolationism of feudalism, and for the first time united popular masses in a common struggle with common ideas. It was in this way that the British nation arose from the revolution of the 17th century. The bourgeois revolutions, and the nations to which they gave birth, arose out of feudal society only after many decades of protracted class struggle, during which the town merchants, the burgers, pitted their strength against the feudal lords and the monarchy, steadily gaining strength and influence as their foes weakened. The new capitalist class was compelled to carry on war with the feudalists to destroy their domination so that they could carry on trade and commerce unmolested and free from the damaging tolls and fines imposed by the feudal landowners on the goods of merchants traversing their territory to reach a distant market. Also, the serfs had to be released from the ties that bound them to the feudal lord so that a plentiful supply of cheap labour would be available in the towns for employment in the workshops, and so that agriculture itself could be transformed from a feudal to a capitalist economy. To be victorious in this struggle, the bourgeoisie had to gain the support of the lower classes and appear to speak in the interests of the whole nation to oppose the parasitical interests of the monarchy, the medieval church, and the nobility. From the very beginning, therefore, the nation was a particular development of class struggle. In its origin, the fight for the nation was fundamentally a question of whether political power would rest in the hands of the new class of merchants or remain with the feudalists – could the rising capitalist class overthrow the feudal state, replacing it with their own particular state form, ruling over a creation that was essentially their own: the capitalist nation. The modern nation-state is a creation of capitalism, which demands the transformation of weak into strong viable states, so as to create the conditions of production that allow for successful competition on the world market. Nationalism was therefore the predominant concern of the revolutionary bourgeoisie. Capitalist expansion and national unification were seen as complementary processes. However once established and systematically perpetuated, the ideology of nationalism takes on an independent existence and asserts its power without disclosing the specific material class interests that led to its formation in the first place. Nationalism appears now as a value in itself and as the only form in which some sort of "sociality” can be realized in an otherwise asocial and atomized society.
This is not to say that the working class did not make some attempts also at advancing their own demands. Every bourgeois revolutionary movement had within it a group which vigorously advanced these primitive working class demands, mostly centering around primitive communist or Utopian ideas and reflecting, as they must reflect, the political immaturity of the class and its lack of independent organisation. The Levellers in the English Revolution and the Babouvists in the French are examples of such primitive communist movements. But, given the development and strength of the various contending classes, the inevitable happened: the evolution of the nation saw a minority of exploiters in power over a majority of exploited. The national division of capitalist production also nationalizes the proletarian class struggle. This is not a mere question of ideology – that is, of the uncritical acceptance of bourgeois nationalism by the working class – but is also a practical need, for it is within the framework of the national economy that the class struggle is fought. With the unity of mankind a distant goal, the evolving nation-state determined the destiny of its labor movement. Like all ideologies, in order to be effective, nationalism had to have some definite contact with real needs and possibilities, not only for the class interests directly associated with it but also for those subjected to their rule. In the main, the basic interests of the workers coincided with those of the rising merchants. Both had a fundamental class interest in the overthrow of the feudal state and that was the primary task that had to be disposed of before new and more advanced tasks, already existing in embryo, could be tackled. Thus, while the bourgeoisie was the leading force behind the rise of nations and nationalism, the working class also had its stake in this development.
Capital has no father- or motherland. Although capitalism is the precondition for building a “nation,” advocates “nationalism,” and protects a “national market” as soon as it can, however, capital continues the pursuit of accumulation and moves to become trans-nationalism, using its own “nationalism” as a springboard. Nationalism meant an expanded and secure national market. But as nationalism progressed, a class among the various nationalisms for markets, for raw materials, and for resources became inevitable. Nationalism stimulated the State to the conquest of foreign lands and to an imperialism on a far greater scale than had been realized by the pre-capitalist States of antiquity. Each nationalism had to fight all other nationalism on an international scale.
All nationalism is based on mythical history, and the Scots version is no exception. Stories from the fourteenth or eighteenth century are used to stitch together, for example, the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath is presented as proof that Scotland is the oldest nation in Europe. The Act of Union with England in 1707 is presented as a catastrophic defeat, while the Jacobite risings of 1715 and 1745 demonstrate that the Scots can still hope to be, ‘a nation once again’, as the song has it.
Why does Scotland need independence? The answer is not ‘freedom’. One could be forgiven for mistaking the Scot Nats as living in some small colonised state located somewhere in the Third World during the 60s. Their language is very much in terms of ‘us’ and ‘them’: oppressed and oppressor Edinburgh versus Westminster. Alex Salmond inhabits a fantasy land in which Scots are the hapless victims of their parasitic Southern neighbours: saddled with problems not of their own making, denied a say in their destiny, living under the imposed dictates of a foreign tyranny. The cultivation of victimhood is essential fodder for nationalists.
Scottish nationalism is based on a myth: the myth that Scottish people are different from Englishmen, Irishmen, Welshmen, or Cornishmen. Most Scots define themselves as Scottish rather than British. Nationalism is what you get when you take differences – primarily historical and cultural, bolstered by peripheral political and economic claims – and elevate them above commonalities. That focus on difference is distorting; it’s what makes nationalism inherently small-minded, historically inaccurate, foolish and dangerous. In the case of Scotland commonalities with the rest of the United Kingdom so vastly outweigh distinctions. What makes someone Scottish in the first place? There are nearly half a million each of Englishmen and Scots living in each other’s geographical boundaries, so that measure seems inadequate, and century upon century of cohabitation has blurred the lines of ancestry such that one can hardly claim Scottishness by descent. Both English and Scots have added their blood to the line on both sides stretching back centuries; it’s simply impossible to disentangle the two. Differences in speech, dress, pastimes or traditions seem too superficial to form the basis for any real distinction.
Workers in Scotland and the rest of Great Britain share a common tongue, common values, common aspirations and common interests: they have shared and forged a common history, and should now be looking to a common future. One thing that is the same, the world over, is the economic plight of the working class and the domination of the bourgeoisie and it is that which must be addressed. Building revolution in a single county, region, state or country is not sustainable or desirable over a long term. For world socialism without borders, whether they are the walls of a factory, the cubicles of an office, or the borders of a nation state. All such boundaries must be torn down. So that we can finally be free.
Most national myths, at their core, are racist. They are fed by ignorance. Those individuals who understand other cultures, speak other languages, and find richness in diversity are shunted aside. Science, history, and psychology are often twisted to serve myth. And many intellectuals are willing to champion and defend absurd theories for nationalist ends. There are no shortages of intellectuals willing to line up behind leaders they despise in times of national crisis, an act that negates the moral posturing they often make from within the confines of academia during peacetime. National myths are largely benign in times of peace. They are stoked by the entertainment industry, in school lessons, sermons preached in church. They do not pose a major challenge to a tolerance of others in peacetime. But national myths ignite a collective amnesia in war. They give past generations a nobility and greatness they never possessed. Almost every group, and especially every nation, has such myths. These myths are the kindling nationalists use to light a conflict. Soldiers want at least the consolation of knowing that they risk their lives for a greater glory. Questioning of purpose proves to be a threat. Dissidents who challenge the goodness of the cause are usually silenced or ignored.
We live in the epoch of the proletarian revolution – the rise of world socialism and its challenge to world capitalism. There is only one class capable of overthrowing capitalism: the working class. There is no ideology above the class struggle; there is no longer an ideology such as nationalism which can serve the interests of both the bourgeoisie and the working class. The Socialist Party is frequently accused of failing to distinguish between oppressed and oppressor nations, between the nationalism of the oppressor which is reactionary and the nationalism of the oppressed which is progressive. Nationalism preaches to the people that they have more in common with one another than they do with the people of other nations, regardless of class. Nationalism helps bind the working class to the bourgeoisie of its nation. Nationalism ties the working people to their own bourgeoisie while socialism unites the working people of the world against the capitalist class. those in the World Socialist Movement argue that the destiny of working people must not be tied to the bourgeoisie, neither to its own existing national bourgeoisie nor to an aspiring ruling class. The working class must determine its own destiny and to the extent that the working class holds nationalist ideas, it is allowing its destiny to be determined by the capitalist class. Unity must be established between the exploited regardless of nationality and race. That is basically the same point that Marx made when he said “labour in the white skin can not be free as long as labor in the black skin is branded.” And in referring to the need to overcome the hostile attitude of the English worker towards the Irish workers, Marx wrote: “He...turns himself into a tool of the aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself.”
Socialism can not be accomplished under the national relations engendered by capitalism. Socialism must be international or it cannot exist at all. The world is irresistibly being driven to internationalism and interdependence. National states cannot resolve such global problems as climate change, depletion of energy and natural reources or deal with the effects of pollution of all kinds on land and ocean, the ecological disasters facing fauna and flora. In the end, it is nationalism and the national State will have to disappear, not socialism. The only race is the human race.
Nationalism divides workers
No comments:
Post a Comment