Disconnects are usual between leaders and the led. But nowhere is this more extreme than between the average Leave voter and the Tory Brexit Westminster elite.
According to statistics the typical Brexit voter is likely to be white-English, resident outside the large metropolitan areas, as well as older, poorer and less well-educated than Remainers. In assessing why Leavers voted for Brexit, we find miscalculation of how Brexit would affect Leavers’ own economic interests mingled with the toxic allure of xenophobic nationalism.
The Leavers’ arguments were essentially not different from those peddled against outsiders throughout history, from the arrival of east European Jews at the beginning of the twentieth century to blacks in the 1950s, or Asians in the 1970s. “They take away our jobs, they drive down wages, they push up housing costs, they strain the resources available for health and education.” In 2016 there was also the financial myth that EU withdrawal would free up 350 million a week from EU contributions which could be redirected to the NHS.
These supposed financial advantages were alloyed with xenophobia and nationalism. “We will get our country back.” “We will take back control [against them, the other].” Outsiders would go or at least stop coming. The Brexit appeal was about nostalgia, the recreation of an England long gone: the England of fish and chips and Max Bygraves shows, an England where the only foreigners were the occasional “paki” on the corner and the odd Italian barber. In short, Leavers saw Brexit simultaneously as a step to improving their lot economically and securing a more ethnically homogeneous community, both ethically and socially. Brexit for them was a sub-conscious drive to turn back the clock to the society that existed under the Keynesian state managed capitalism in the decades following the Second World War.
But the Tory Brexit elite have no intention of turning back the clock. Their main complaint against the EU is not freedom of movement, but the inhibitions that the EU places on the even further extension of neo-economic liberalism. They recognise that exiting the EU will lead to capital flight (non-investment, re-location); a mass influx of cheap low quality commodities, including food, from around the world. Unemployment will grow and state revenues will fall, bringing about a near end to welfare spending and disaster for the NHS. But the Tory Brexit elite will “solve” the problem through an internationally competitive economy of low wages with a minimal welfare state and limited employment and consumer rights - and all this while waving the Union Jack.
If Brexit was an act of desperation, driven by the worst of motives, by those marginalised and left behind in Britain, the consequences of the referendum will only tighten the noose around their necks.
12 January 2018
8 January 2018
Brexit: Corbyn should reject Leavers' arguments
Jeremy Corbyn should not respect the reasons most Leaver voted for Brexit
It is worth examining the argument, often heard, that the Labour leadership is right to back Brexit because seven out ten of Labour seats voted for Leave.
First numbers. Yes, 70% of Labour MPs may have a majority of their constituents who voted Leave, but that does not mean that a majority of the Labour voters in those seats backed Brexit. Sure, in the post-industrial towns of England, there are some seats where a majority of Labour voters probably did back Leave, but it is fewer than the touted 70% of Labour seats.
The vast majority of Brexit votes were cast for one of the following reasons, or both. First, Brexit would yield an economic advantage for ordinary people. Well, this argument is simply wrong. The other reason was the attraction of xenophobic nationalism.
So when Jeremy Corbyn talks about respecting the referendum decision, it is legitimate to ask, which of those two motivations for Brexit should be respected and promoted by Labour? Economic fallacies, or respect for xenophobic nationalism?
Those who support Corbyn and the Left, but are utterly opposed to British nationalism and xenophobia, need organisations to starting fighting within Labour (and outside it) for the policies and values in which we believe.
It is worth examining the argument, often heard, that the Labour leadership is right to back Brexit because seven out ten of Labour seats voted for Leave.
First numbers. Yes, 70% of Labour MPs may have a majority of their constituents who voted Leave, but that does not mean that a majority of the Labour voters in those seats backed Brexit. Sure, in the post-industrial towns of England, there are some seats where a majority of Labour voters probably did back Leave, but it is fewer than the touted 70% of Labour seats.
The vast majority of Brexit votes were cast for one of the following reasons, or both. First, Brexit would yield an economic advantage for ordinary people. Well, this argument is simply wrong. The other reason was the attraction of xenophobic nationalism.
So when Jeremy Corbyn talks about respecting the referendum decision, it is legitimate to ask, which of those two motivations for Brexit should be respected and promoted by Labour? Economic fallacies, or respect for xenophobic nationalism?
Those who support Corbyn and the Left, but are utterly opposed to British nationalism and xenophobia, need organisations to starting fighting within Labour (and outside it) for the policies and values in which we believe.
6 January 2018
Jeremy Corbyn: we support him, but he's making mistakes
Socialist should support the Corbyn leadership of the Labour Party, but that does not mean Corbyn is not making serious mistakes.
The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party in 2015 ended a quarter of a century of New Labourism and the collaboration of the Labour Party with neo-economic liberalism. While that victory is welcome, the Corbyn leadership has failed to adjust to the requirements of socialism in the twenty-first century. The main points of criticism are these:
1. On Brexit Corbyn flops around. Brexit means a loss of rights, economic damage and is a fuel for nationalist-xenophobia. These are all things Labour should unconditionally oppose.
2. The 2017 General Election temporarily silenced the New-Labourites who still dominate the PLP and the Party bureaucracy. Yet there is no coordinated struggle from the top against the Right; e.g. supporting de-selection of at least those Labour MPs who would be disloyal to a Crobyn-led Labour government. The leadership has also failed to speak out against the witchhunt of socialists in the party.
3. The leadership is committed to an outdated tribalism and will not work or form electoral arrangements with other progressives forces, in particular the Green Party. The leadership also support the current undemocratic first-past-the-post electoral system.
4. Despite waffle about constitutional conventions, the current leadership supports the Union and opposes independence for Scotland (and for an independent Scottish Labour Party). While it is not for the English left to tell Scotland to be independent, the Labour Party should at least be neutral on the issue rather than rallying behind British nationalism.
Progressive people need to support the Corbyn leadership generally, but also need to organise separately within and outside the British Labour Party for a progressive radical socialism.
The election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader of the Labour Party in 2015 ended a quarter of a century of New Labourism and the collaboration of the Labour Party with neo-economic liberalism. While that victory is welcome, the Corbyn leadership has failed to adjust to the requirements of socialism in the twenty-first century. The main points of criticism are these:
1. On Brexit Corbyn flops around. Brexit means a loss of rights, economic damage and is a fuel for nationalist-xenophobia. These are all things Labour should unconditionally oppose.
2. The 2017 General Election temporarily silenced the New-Labourites who still dominate the PLP and the Party bureaucracy. Yet there is no coordinated struggle from the top against the Right; e.g. supporting de-selection of at least those Labour MPs who would be disloyal to a Crobyn-led Labour government. The leadership has also failed to speak out against the witchhunt of socialists in the party.
3. The leadership is committed to an outdated tribalism and will not work or form electoral arrangements with other progressives forces, in particular the Green Party. The leadership also support the current undemocratic first-past-the-post electoral system.
4. Despite waffle about constitutional conventions, the current leadership supports the Union and opposes independence for Scotland (and for an independent Scottish Labour Party). While it is not for the English left to tell Scotland to be independent, the Labour Party should at least be neutral on the issue rather than rallying behind British nationalism.
Progressive people need to support the Corbyn leadership generally, but also need to organise separately within and outside the British Labour Party for a progressive radical socialism.
22 December 2017
Brexit: the myth of British superiority
The arrogance behind British nationalism is not supported by facts
One of the nationalistic-xenophobic assumptions of Brexiters is that Britain is in some way ‘better’ than its European neighbours, and, for that reason, should not be in a union with them. How else could the following comment on passports by the pro-Brexit Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell be interpreted?
“The humiliation of having a pink [sic] European Union passport will now soon be over and the United Kingdom nationals can once again feel pride and self-confidence in their own nationality when travelling…”
However, the myth of British superiority is worth probing with a few comparative facts, contrasting Britain with its immediate European neighbours. Let me take these to be Ireland, France, Germany, Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) and Scandinavia, all democracies since the Second World War. It is worth noting that this group of countries, including Britain, contains a majority of the EU’s population and wealth.
Among these countries, according to the IMF in 2017, Britain is the poorest in GNP per head, with $ 43 500 per year – only marginally below France, but well below Germany on $ 49 800. The smaller countries of Benelux, Ireland and Scandinavia are all considerably richer. And by the end of 2017, as a consequence of Brexit, Britain’s economic growth is lagging behind that of Eurozone, exacerbating rather than reducing the difference.
For working people, their situation is even worse than their mainland European counterparts. Britain is the most economically unequal, with inequality at an index of 34, while France and Germany both score 29. (To understand these figures, zero represents complete equality, while inequality in the United States stands at 40.)
In fact, Britain is more unequal today than at any point since the middle of the nineteenth century; And with welfare cuts in a deteriorating economy, inequality is growing further in the UK. In absolute terms, in the period 2009-16, a massive 70% of households experienced stagnation or a drop in income.
Inequality is linked to a dysfunctional society. Just to take one example, in every 100 000 people, Germany imprisons 81, France 118, but Britain a staggering 150.
If the current situation is bad, the future is worse. Brexit is already causing capital investment to avoid Britain, and for business to relocate out of the country. The prospect of trade barriers after March 2019 further impedes the economy. The Tory Brexit elite, with a whip hand in the May government, want to spurn the European social-market model all together and fall into step with the US economy. After the shocks of EU withdrawal, they seek a society of low taxes, minimal rights for workers and consumers, with little or no social welfare - a European America or a Singapore on the Thames.
The outlook is grim.
One of the nationalistic-xenophobic assumptions of Brexiters is that Britain is in some way ‘better’ than its European neighbours, and, for that reason, should not be in a union with them. How else could the following comment on passports by the pro-Brexit Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell be interpreted?
“The humiliation of having a pink [sic] European Union passport will now soon be over and the United Kingdom nationals can once again feel pride and self-confidence in their own nationality when travelling…”
However, the myth of British superiority is worth probing with a few comparative facts, contrasting Britain with its immediate European neighbours. Let me take these to be Ireland, France, Germany, Benelux (Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg) and Scandinavia, all democracies since the Second World War. It is worth noting that this group of countries, including Britain, contains a majority of the EU’s population and wealth.
Among these countries, according to the IMF in 2017, Britain is the poorest in GNP per head, with $ 43 500 per year – only marginally below France, but well below Germany on $ 49 800. The smaller countries of Benelux, Ireland and Scandinavia are all considerably richer. And by the end of 2017, as a consequence of Brexit, Britain’s economic growth is lagging behind that of Eurozone, exacerbating rather than reducing the difference.
For working people, their situation is even worse than their mainland European counterparts. Britain is the most economically unequal, with inequality at an index of 34, while France and Germany both score 29. (To understand these figures, zero represents complete equality, while inequality in the United States stands at 40.)
In fact, Britain is more unequal today than at any point since the middle of the nineteenth century; And with welfare cuts in a deteriorating economy, inequality is growing further in the UK. In absolute terms, in the period 2009-16, a massive 70% of households experienced stagnation or a drop in income.
Inequality is linked to a dysfunctional society. Just to take one example, in every 100 000 people, Germany imprisons 81, France 118, but Britain a staggering 150.
If the current situation is bad, the future is worse. Brexit is already causing capital investment to avoid Britain, and for business to relocate out of the country. The prospect of trade barriers after March 2019 further impedes the economy. The Tory Brexit elite, with a whip hand in the May government, want to spurn the European social-market model all together and fall into step with the US economy. After the shocks of EU withdrawal, they seek a society of low taxes, minimal rights for workers and consumers, with little or no social welfare - a European America or a Singapore on the Thames.
The outlook is grim.
1 November 2017
Death penality: wrong in all circumstances
The death penalty should be opposed in all circumstances.
I believe that the right to life is the cornerstone of human rights. It can therefore never legitimately be the purpose of the state to take life. There are of course cases where human life is taken as the consequence of other legitimate policies: e.g. the waging of a just war, a police operation to free a hostage, self-defence, etc. but in all these cases the loss of life is the consequence of the action, never its purpose.
It is from the protection of human life (even of evil-doers) that all other rights derive. (NB there are 12 US states which have no death penalty, so the US is not all bad on this issue.). No European country (except the dictatorship in Belarus) has a death penalty, nor does Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.
Of course there are practical arguments against the death penalty: it’s irreversible in the event of mistake, it focuses attention on the criminal and not the victim, it equates the crime and penalty and therefore tells the criminal “yes’ you can kill, if you don’t mind dying, etc. But my fundamental objection is not practical but moral.
I believe that the right to life is the cornerstone of human rights. It can therefore never legitimately be the purpose of the state to take life. There are of course cases where human life is taken as the consequence of other legitimate policies: e.g. the waging of a just war, a police operation to free a hostage, self-defence, etc. but in all these cases the loss of life is the consequence of the action, never its purpose.
It is from the protection of human life (even of evil-doers) that all other rights derive. (NB there are 12 US states which have no death penalty, so the US is not all bad on this issue.). No European country (except the dictatorship in Belarus) has a death penalty, nor does Canada, Australia, or New Zealand.
Of course there are practical arguments against the death penalty: it’s irreversible in the event of mistake, it focuses attention on the criminal and not the victim, it equates the crime and penalty and therefore tells the criminal “yes’ you can kill, if you don’t mind dying, etc. But my fundamental objection is not practical but moral.
Freedom: a couple of comments
Freedom needs to be considered in a social context for it to be fully meaningful.
At the core of the notion of freedom is personal is choice and absence of restraint, but there are three other ingredients to freedom that need to be considered.
First, freedom occurs in a social context, so the freedom of one person can be the unfreedom of another. (My right to play my piano against your right to quiet enjoyment of your property) To resolve this problem, we need the help of J. S. Mill’s rule that one has the maximum amount of liberty consistent with everyone else having the same freedom.
Second, the amount of freedom and the degree of choice one has is dependent on the level of development of society and the resources (wealth, education) available to its citizens. Poverty and ignorance restrict choice and therefore freedom.
Finally, collectives never enjoy freedom, individuals do, so the freedom of every individual counts. We therefore judge the level of freedom in society not by the average, but by the amount enjoyed by the person with the least freedom.
At the core of the notion of freedom is personal is choice and absence of restraint, but there are three other ingredients to freedom that need to be considered.
First, freedom occurs in a social context, so the freedom of one person can be the unfreedom of another. (My right to play my piano against your right to quiet enjoyment of your property) To resolve this problem, we need the help of J. S. Mill’s rule that one has the maximum amount of liberty consistent with everyone else having the same freedom.
Second, the amount of freedom and the degree of choice one has is dependent on the level of development of society and the resources (wealth, education) available to its citizens. Poverty and ignorance restrict choice and therefore freedom.
Finally, collectives never enjoy freedom, individuals do, so the freedom of every individual counts. We therefore judge the level of freedom in society not by the average, but by the amount enjoyed by the person with the least freedom.
23 October 2017
"British Jobs for British Workers” is a xenophobic and racist slogan
"British Jobs for British Workers” is a xenophobic and racist slogan: the left can debunk it.
In the 2016 EU referendum, opposing the migration of workers from central and eastern Europe into Britain was the key issue for many Leave voters, and one which was highlighted by the xenophobic UKIP party. The Leavers’ arguments were as simple as they were wrong. They said the the migrant workers took away ‘our’ jobs, depress wages and put pressure on housing and other social services. Moreover, they undermine the cultural homogeneity of ‘our’ country.
Essentially this xenophobic/racist argument is the same as the one used to oppose and discriminate against the Catholic Irish in the nineteenth century, Jews escaping pogroms at the beginning of the twentieth, blacks from the West Indies and Asians from Africa and the Indian subcontinent in the post-war period. By contrast, the British moving abroad for economic reasons are never labelled as migrants, but as ‘expats.’
It is completely correct to oppose this racism, to point out that the economy is boosted by young, migrant workers and to defend EU freedom of movement as an essential liberty. But in opposing racist lies, we shouldn’t blind ourselves to truths lurking behind the racist propaganda.
Let’s take a hypothetical case to illustrate the point. What is the sense of school cleaners in an English town commuting monthly from Romania? The workers live in appalling overcrowded conditions and receive no more than the minimum wage, while indigenous people in the town join the lines of the unemployed. At the same time a pressure is put on the local housing stock. Do circumstances such as these prove the xenophobes’ argument?
Not at all. The situation in that English town would be no different if the cleaners came not from Romania, but from Scotland or another part of Britain. The effects on local resources and local unemployment would be the same. The issue for certain jobs is not, as the racists claim, “British jobs for British workers,” but local jobs for local people. There is nothing wrong in principle in offering employment first to people who have lived in the area for a certain amount of time. Nationality has nothing to do with it. If a Romanian has lived in the town for say two years, s/he is at the front of the queue. The Brit from the other end of the country is not.
Once we accept in principle the idea of local jobs for local people in certain limited instances, we solve much of the ‘legitimate’ complaint and reveal the xenophobic and racist character of the slogan, “British jobs for British workers.”
In the 2016 EU referendum, opposing the migration of workers from central and eastern Europe into Britain was the key issue for many Leave voters, and one which was highlighted by the xenophobic UKIP party. The Leavers’ arguments were as simple as they were wrong. They said the the migrant workers took away ‘our’ jobs, depress wages and put pressure on housing and other social services. Moreover, they undermine the cultural homogeneity of ‘our’ country.
Essentially this xenophobic/racist argument is the same as the one used to oppose and discriminate against the Catholic Irish in the nineteenth century, Jews escaping pogroms at the beginning of the twentieth, blacks from the West Indies and Asians from Africa and the Indian subcontinent in the post-war period. By contrast, the British moving abroad for economic reasons are never labelled as migrants, but as ‘expats.’
It is completely correct to oppose this racism, to point out that the economy is boosted by young, migrant workers and to defend EU freedom of movement as an essential liberty. But in opposing racist lies, we shouldn’t blind ourselves to truths lurking behind the racist propaganda.
Let’s take a hypothetical case to illustrate the point. What is the sense of school cleaners in an English town commuting monthly from Romania? The workers live in appalling overcrowded conditions and receive no more than the minimum wage, while indigenous people in the town join the lines of the unemployed. At the same time a pressure is put on the local housing stock. Do circumstances such as these prove the xenophobes’ argument?
Not at all. The situation in that English town would be no different if the cleaners came not from Romania, but from Scotland or another part of Britain. The effects on local resources and local unemployment would be the same. The issue for certain jobs is not, as the racists claim, “British jobs for British workers,” but local jobs for local people. There is nothing wrong in principle in offering employment first to people who have lived in the area for a certain amount of time. Nationality has nothing to do with it. If a Romanian has lived in the town for say two years, s/he is at the front of the queue. The Brit from the other end of the country is not.
Once we accept in principle the idea of local jobs for local people in certain limited instances, we solve much of the ‘legitimate’ complaint and reveal the xenophobic and racist character of the slogan, “British jobs for British workers.”
10 October 2017
Should Catalonia declare independence?
Independence for Catalonia is not a principle. It depends on the will of the inhabitants and political realities.
As a socialist I have no fixed principle or view on whether Catalonia should be independent or not. But I do believe two things: first, that Catalonia should have the right to independence if the majority of people living there want it; and second, the behaviour of the Spanish state in violently impeding the October 1st referendum was deplorable.
However, following the chaotic referendum, socialists should not back immediate Catalan independence for two reasons: In the first place,it is far from certain that a majority of Catalonia’s voters support independence. And second, a declaration of independence by the Catalan Parliament would be followed by the forceful suspension of the Catalan administration and the imposition of direct rule from Madrid. Even if independence in these circumstances were achieved, the picture would be far from rosy. No recognition of Catalonia internationally, exclusion from the EU and massive de-investment in Spain’s richest region. There is certainly no public appetite for all this to happen.
If the Catalan government pulls back to fight another day, it is in strong position to win concessions from a Madrid which has no desire to go to war with its rebellious region.
As a socialist I have no fixed principle or view on whether Catalonia should be independent or not. But I do believe two things: first, that Catalonia should have the right to independence if the majority of people living there want it; and second, the behaviour of the Spanish state in violently impeding the October 1st referendum was deplorable.
However, following the chaotic referendum, socialists should not back immediate Catalan independence for two reasons: In the first place,it is far from certain that a majority of Catalonia’s voters support independence. And second, a declaration of independence by the Catalan Parliament would be followed by the forceful suspension of the Catalan administration and the imposition of direct rule from Madrid. Even if independence in these circumstances were achieved, the picture would be far from rosy. No recognition of Catalonia internationally, exclusion from the EU and massive de-investment in Spain’s richest region. There is certainly no public appetite for all this to happen.
If the Catalan government pulls back to fight another day, it is in strong position to win concessions from a Madrid which has no desire to go to war with its rebellious region.
9 October 2017
Zionism: don't leave yourself vulnerable to attack
By banding around the the term Zionism, leftists are being imprecise and unnecessarily leaving themselves open to malicious allegations of antisemitism.
It’s somewhat crazy to deliberately slip on a banana skin just to make the point that somebody else should not have put it there. But that is pretty much what some on the left are doing when they bang on about Zionism, and end up being given the boot by the Labour Party.
Why use the term at all? Zionism was a project, gaining steam around the beginning of the 20th Century, particularly among Jews in the west of the then Russian empire, to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Zionism was never a majority opinion among Jews. Today, Israel is not a project but a regional superpower, whose dissolution is neither desirable nor realistic. Even if the country is a paradise compared with its neighbours, in contrast to other liberal democracies it has two major shortcomings. Israel is based on the supremacy of one ethnic group and relegates its Palestinian citizens to a second-class status. In addition, Israel occupies territories outside its borders and appropriates land for its own citizens and denies many human and civic rights to Palestinians living under permanent military occupation.
Both these things are worthy of hefty criticism, but it is more precise to criticise the Israeli state and successive Israeli governments than to talk in abstractions about Zionism. On top of that references to Zionism carry two further dangers.
First, you and I know that antisemitism (prejudice against an ethnic group) and anti-Zionism (opposition to a political project) are quite different things. And, of course, those in the Labour Party and press throwing around accusations of antisemitism know that too. But the the distinction is lost on many ordinary people, so people opposing Zionism can easily and falsely be labelled as antisemites.
Second, criticising Zionism is in principle OK, but talking about Zionist conspiracies is not. The latter implies that people who are Jewish are all secretly working together with Israel to advance themselves against the interests of the gentile world. That’s pure antisemitic nonsense. You can distinguish, I suppose, between a conspiracy to promote Zionism and a Zionist conspiracy, but why go there? These muddles can be avoided.
Indeed, why negotiate this minefield at all, when you don’t have to. Remember, the Corbyn leadership is now focussed on winning office. If you step on a mine, they are not going to expend political capital to help you.
It’s somewhat crazy to deliberately slip on a banana skin just to make the point that somebody else should not have put it there. But that is pretty much what some on the left are doing when they bang on about Zionism, and end up being given the boot by the Labour Party.
Why use the term at all? Zionism was a project, gaining steam around the beginning of the 20th Century, particularly among Jews in the west of the then Russian empire, to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Zionism was never a majority opinion among Jews. Today, Israel is not a project but a regional superpower, whose dissolution is neither desirable nor realistic. Even if the country is a paradise compared with its neighbours, in contrast to other liberal democracies it has two major shortcomings. Israel is based on the supremacy of one ethnic group and relegates its Palestinian citizens to a second-class status. In addition, Israel occupies territories outside its borders and appropriates land for its own citizens and denies many human and civic rights to Palestinians living under permanent military occupation.
Both these things are worthy of hefty criticism, but it is more precise to criticise the Israeli state and successive Israeli governments than to talk in abstractions about Zionism. On top of that references to Zionism carry two further dangers.
First, you and I know that antisemitism (prejudice against an ethnic group) and anti-Zionism (opposition to a political project) are quite different things. And, of course, those in the Labour Party and press throwing around accusations of antisemitism know that too. But the the distinction is lost on many ordinary people, so people opposing Zionism can easily and falsely be labelled as antisemites.
Second, criticising Zionism is in principle OK, but talking about Zionist conspiracies is not. The latter implies that people who are Jewish are all secretly working together with Israel to advance themselves against the interests of the gentile world. That’s pure antisemitic nonsense. You can distinguish, I suppose, between a conspiracy to promote Zionism and a Zionist conspiracy, but why go there? These muddles can be avoided.
Indeed, why negotiate this minefield at all, when you don’t have to. Remember, the Corbyn leadership is now focussed on winning office. If you step on a mine, they are not going to expend political capital to help you.
2 October 2017
The Nation State: facts and desires
The nation state is the prime unit of focus in politics, but should it be?
Despite talk of globalisation, in the developed capitalist world today the nation state remains the key unit of political organisation and identity. It possesses a monopoly of violence over its territory, supported by its legal system, bureaucracy and has control of the vast bulk of money held as public funds. Neither sub-units, such as regional authorities, nor supranational ones, such as the European Union, come anywhere near to outweighing the political might of the nation state. That thesis was never proved more amply than during the Catalan Independence referendum fiasco on 1 October 2017.
Several other West European states (e.g. Britain and Belgium) contain nationalist and separatist tendencies. While such autonomous movements should not be politically underestimated, it should be noted that not one state in western Europe has been broken up in this way since 1945. The devolved units, such as Scotland and Catalonia, remain very much secondary to the old political states of which they are still part.
Nonetheless, the independent power and room for manoeuvre of the nation state has weakened in the last thirty years on account of globalisation - or to say that more precisely, the free movement of financial capital, the growing role of transnational corporations and transnational political agreements (e.g. the Schengen open borders agreement) Yet, that does not change the fundamental power of the nation state, the real power of which was most clearly demonstrated in the near financial meltdown in 2008. Collapsing banks could only be rescued by subsidies from nation states, while supranational bodies such as the EU proved themselves weak and ineffective.
An entirely different question is: should the nation state be the exclusive focus for the political left? The answer is no for at least two reasons: first nationalism by its nature not only creates a community of "insiders," imagined or otherwise, for those who are deemed part of the nation, but by the same token it also identifies and excludes those who are not deemed to part of the nation. The striving for socialism, tactical consideration aside, can never be based on preference for one set of people defined by citizenship or ethnicity at the expense of others, because socialism is properly anchored in principles of universalism and internationalism.
The second reason is practical. Reformism is about progressive change brought about by the state, nearly always with popular pressure from below. It is indeed true that in the so-called Golden Years, late 1940s to the mid 1970s, the nation state in every West European democracy did bring about meaningful reform in favour of working people. Thus we can clearly see that, though the state is an instrument of capitalist power, it also has the ability to regulate capitalism and can do so on occasion against the immediate interests of capitalists. And today, in so far as globalisation has diminished the power of the national state, the space for progressive reform lost to the nation state can only be taken up by supranational bodies – and in Europe that mean the EU. Such reform is, of course, utterly unrealistic if conceived as the EU alone acting against member states, but is perfectly feasible if it were the EU acting in coalition with several of its big member states - even though, sadly, that opportunity has been lost to the British Left on account of Brexit.
Despite talk of globalisation, in the developed capitalist world today the nation state remains the key unit of political organisation and identity. It possesses a monopoly of violence over its territory, supported by its legal system, bureaucracy and has control of the vast bulk of money held as public funds. Neither sub-units, such as regional authorities, nor supranational ones, such as the European Union, come anywhere near to outweighing the political might of the nation state. That thesis was never proved more amply than during the Catalan Independence referendum fiasco on 1 October 2017.
Several other West European states (e.g. Britain and Belgium) contain nationalist and separatist tendencies. While such autonomous movements should not be politically underestimated, it should be noted that not one state in western Europe has been broken up in this way since 1945. The devolved units, such as Scotland and Catalonia, remain very much secondary to the old political states of which they are still part.
Nonetheless, the independent power and room for manoeuvre of the nation state has weakened in the last thirty years on account of globalisation - or to say that more precisely, the free movement of financial capital, the growing role of transnational corporations and transnational political agreements (e.g. the Schengen open borders agreement) Yet, that does not change the fundamental power of the nation state, the real power of which was most clearly demonstrated in the near financial meltdown in 2008. Collapsing banks could only be rescued by subsidies from nation states, while supranational bodies such as the EU proved themselves weak and ineffective.
An entirely different question is: should the nation state be the exclusive focus for the political left? The answer is no for at least two reasons: first nationalism by its nature not only creates a community of "insiders," imagined or otherwise, for those who are deemed part of the nation, but by the same token it also identifies and excludes those who are not deemed to part of the nation. The striving for socialism, tactical consideration aside, can never be based on preference for one set of people defined by citizenship or ethnicity at the expense of others, because socialism is properly anchored in principles of universalism and internationalism.
The second reason is practical. Reformism is about progressive change brought about by the state, nearly always with popular pressure from below. It is indeed true that in the so-called Golden Years, late 1940s to the mid 1970s, the nation state in every West European democracy did bring about meaningful reform in favour of working people. Thus we can clearly see that, though the state is an instrument of capitalist power, it also has the ability to regulate capitalism and can do so on occasion against the immediate interests of capitalists. And today, in so far as globalisation has diminished the power of the national state, the space for progressive reform lost to the nation state can only be taken up by supranational bodies – and in Europe that mean the EU. Such reform is, of course, utterly unrealistic if conceived as the EU alone acting against member states, but is perfectly feasible if it were the EU acting in coalition with several of its big member states - even though, sadly, that opportunity has been lost to the British Left on account of Brexit.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)