Why is nationalism so effective and so
persistent? What is the basis for the continual appeal of nationalism in
its many forms? Wine and Cheese tackle the question.
When we declare our opposition to capital and nation, quite a few
people would agree with the later part if we appended an ‘-ism’. Being a
‘nationalist’ is not a badge of honour these days, instead it is
reserved for the types of the British National Party. A proper,
democratic citizen does not consider himself a nationalist, instead the
much more noble label ‘patriot’ is preferred. A patriot, so the popular
idea, does not look down on other nations, but ‘instead’ and ‘only’
loves his own. This love expresses itself in many different ways:
* Cheering for the English, Welsh, Scottish or British team in
whatever sport is on telly goes without question. That ‘we’ win if they
win is for some reason understood.
* “British jobs for British workers” – Gordon Brown shared
appreciation for this with some of the Lindsey wildcat strikers. The
disagreement a liberal would register with this is that these sentiments
harm ‘our’ economy.
* ‘We’ are all in this financial crisis together and need to pull
in our belt. In the interest of ‘our’ economy we will have to take a
hit. Although, some of those ‘greedy bankers’ might have to give up some
of their bonuses as well in times of crisis for the sake of ‘us’ all.
* ‘Our’ troops deserve ‘our’ support in Afghanistan, one might
disagree with the government but this does not alienate oneself from the
troops who risk their lives in order to serve ‘us’.
* Some go even as far as asking how many immigrants ‘our’ culture and country can take.
* While these statements deal with quite different topics, they
all have two features in common. First, they are based on some common
definition of who ‘we’ are, i.e. who belongs to this group and who does
not: “Nation denotes a people who are believed to or deemed to share
common customs, origins, and history” (Wikipedia). Some people also
mention language. Second, these statements also imply some content that
follows from this group membership (an entitlement for preferred
treatment for instance, or a collective worth sacrificing for). The
justifications of the groups in question and the demands made in the
name of these groups is what we call nationalism.
In the first part of this article we will consider the various
reasons being put forward to justify the nation. Some of them are
clearly unfashionable these days and thus it might seem somewhat tedious
and unnecessary to engage on this level with them. However, these
justifications are not as obsolete as one might hope and furthermore
have an implicit existence in citizenship law.
In the second part of this article we will explain why and how people
are subordinated under the modern nation. We will also give reasons why
the ideology of the national collective is so successful – and why in
fact all the above mentioned examples of ‘patriotism’ are an expression
of the same partisanship for one’s nation. Even if we accept the common
separation between patriotism and nationalism, we note that the love
towards one’s ‘own’ nation is the prerequisite for nationalists to look
down on others. It is their positive judgement about ‘their’ nation
which allows them to pass a negative on others. While not every
’patriot’ must make the transition, appreciation for one nation is the
requirement for the nationalist disapproval of others. In any case, we
critique nationalism for its love towards a country. Thus, the proposed
division between patriotism and nationalism plays no role for our
critique.
Before we get on to the particular justifications put forward for
nations and nationalism in general we note that need to justify or
explain a particular collective or group by something else only appears
if the common interest in that group is not a sufficient or self-evident
bond. Who would worry as much about the common ground of some skittles
club’s members (compared to members competing with each other in a
modern nation-state)? For the skittles club the common ground is so
plain – to skittle – that nobody would bother looking to justify it or
in fact give reasons for why this club has really strong bonds and
should therefore be a group of common interests.
1. Foundation Myths of the Nation
Common Blood
The claim that human beings can be split into various races and
peoples based on their biology and in particular their blood is rather
out of fashion these days (except for most fascists) and can quite
easily be proven wrong. The most common biological differences of blood
types are the rhesus factor (of which someone can be positive or
negative) and a blood group. In all parts of the world, there are people
with A, AB, B and O as blood group and there is no nation which has
members of one blood group only.
There are biological variations with a specific geographic
distribution. In some cases a certain illness might only exist in a
certain area or in some area far more people have a biological
specificity compared to the global average. However, there is no
correspondence to the way the world is split up in nation-states;
biological features do not respect the boundary between various
nation-states. For the moment, we will not concern ourselves with the
question why people are ready to take this classification as a founding
cause for national unity. Here the point is to simply show that biology
cannot be the logical reason for citizens of one nation to belong to it.
Common Language
Language is something all states
refer to: it is a matter of law and all state have one official
language – or several. Switzerland for example makes the point by its
mere existence that a language cannot be so utterly decisive for a
nation: The country has four official languages. This does not seem to
be a reason for a widespread call for its division into four separate
units or to join neighbouring countries on a linguistic basis. On the
other hand, the British do not have an exclusive usage of the English
language as their mother tongue. One nation = one language is obviously
not the criterion the world is divided by and language cannot be the
reason for the existence of each nation.
Nevertheless language is a common instrument for movements of
national liberation to legitimise their cause. During the 90s, it was
quite common in Yugoslavia to stress that the Serbo-Croatian language
was in fact not a language at all – Bosnian, Croatian, Serbian (and
Montenegrin) were, so the claim goes, all languages of their own. After
some hard work first results showed: words were invented in e.g.
Croatian, which Serbs did not understand and the other way around. The
formalisation of those differences did indeed split up what was spoken
and written in different parts of the country.
The other way around vice versa: when the German state was founded in
1871 2% spoke German roughly in the way it is used today. Linguistic
unity was established by means of decree and force and well accepted by
the population of most modern states.
Alleged and established differences or not, the language argument
ignores the fact that there are more often than not no clear-cut
boundaries between languages: many neighbouring tongues are similar and
influence one another. There is no objective criterion for what makes a
dialect a dialect of some language or a language of its own.
But even if language were proper means to divide the world into
nations: language is a skill which can be learned. It is merely the
outer form of a thought. The content of any text can be written, spoken
or thought in any language. The language in which the idea is expressed
does not presuppose any content or even feelings. It therefore cannot be
a reason for national differences and thus a proof for why and how
nations are nations.
Common Culture
The same argument applies to the criterion of ‘customs’ as well. Sure
enough, quite a few English know how to enjoy a cup of tea – but
obviously not all do so (rumour has it some even hate it) whereas some
people from abroad do love it. All fondness of behaviour, skill, smell
etc. is a matter of taste. To give oneself up to the taste of tea simply
presupposes two things: that the person knows about the drink and that
she is interested in it or wants to find out whether she likes the
experience on her tongue. But her decision to get involved in that
particular activity is a matter of will. The result of one’s decision is
not predetermined by one’s nationality, so the nationality cannot be
the reason for neither cultural highlights nor cultural horrors.
This argument may seem quite formal. After all, no-one (the BNP and
folks alike aside) has asserted that all members of a nation share all
of the qualities. It would merely be a tendency: people in the UK on
average or by numbers speak English, drink beer, are polite and critical
of the war in Iraq. More globally speaking: surely there are certain
regions where the sitar is played regularly, whereas is it completely
unknown elsewhere. However, the claim that this statistical difference
would be a reason and foundation for a nation is still wrong. For any
example in the field of language, culture, custom etc. there will be
members of one nation who will have more in common with members of other
nations. And one member of a nation that has culturally nothing at all
in common with another member of that same nation, at least not on the
basis of the discussed definition. The only objective difference is the
higher likelihood that someone from a particular region is exposed to a
particular custom, dish etc. while people from far away might be
ignorant towards it – a situation which can be redeemed easily on a
personal level, e.g. by reading a book. Finally, even if there was a
particular region with a particular custom not practised anywhere else
that still is no reason for a nation-state. The adherents could simply
found a club, team or whatever suits them best.
The spreading of culture is not as innocent as it might seem. The
state ‘supports’ its citizens making cultural choices. What national
culture means is communicated in education from kindergarten to
university. Through diverse programmes and schemes from the ministry of
cultural affairs, the government decides which exhibitions, which
artists, which cultural stream to boost. National culture is something
co-produced by the state and a result of its actions.
The nationalist appreciation of culture includes the stressing of the
‘real Englishman’ Shakespeare or ‘our’ J. K. Rowling – just as if every
British person who appreciates the writer would be best friends with
her and therefore happy for her books to be received so well. But the
idea is a different one: through ‘our’ J. K. Rowling ‘our’ national
culture is ostensibly expressed. Indeed any cultural work refers to
other cultural products and that includes pieces of art from the same
national origin. It is a reflection on the existing. However, by baring
the traces of and processing present and past art, each piece of art is
something new exactly by making that reference. To put it differently,
it is exactly the lack of identity which distinguishes a cultural
product, its uniqueness, not its identity with some national culture.
The much praised cultural treasures are treasures because they are not
like the rest. Furthermore, while the references made by cultural
products will not be a tribute to all kinds of work everywhere, art
never did stop at national borders nor is it a national product. Simply
by the artists’ citizenship art is declared as English, French or
something else – owing to people perceiving it as such. But there is
nothing about the piece itself that would make it belong to a nation.
Common History
Common history seems to be a rather objective founding principle at
first. It is something that happened and that required (usually) many
people to take part. No one can write history on his own. Common
history, i.e. history shared by a nation is, what happened to the people
belonging to that group in the past. The UK for example was founded in
1707, was a world power in the 19th century and a little longer, and
helped to win WWII. In more modern days, its government took a strong
stance against the organised worker’s movement in the 80s, the UK public
lively discussed the need for British troops in Iraq as well as the
size of a healthy model and worries about its teenage pregnancy rate.
So far, so bizarre. Again, the question is, if all that really founds
the nation. Talking about these facts in Britain’s long-ago as well as
its more recent history, exactly the unity of the people which is ought
to be substantiated is already presupposed. National history before the
nation-state was formed as a backward projection: Once and only if the
‘we’ is defined, a group of people long or very long dead can be made
into a collective. A collective bound by history to the current one.
Anyway, for any occurrence, say, more than a hundred years ago there
simply cannot be a physical ‘we’, since no one is left who actually took
part. But even for anything more up-to-date, most endeavours and
decisions are still taken with at least a considerable minority of
people opposing the project; yet, they are still citizens. The other way
around makes it fit: If the nation already exists with all its
citizens, than there is a collective and a history that can be referred
to as ‘ours’.
If this history is given as a (or even the) reason for the nation,
then that turns the real relation of nation and history upside down:
without the nation there would simply be none of its history the history
is the result of its formation.
Again it is the state which fosters this quid pro quo by educating
its junior and senior subjects about ‘their’ history in history classes,
museums and on public TV channels.
NB: Some remarks on the making of the British
Let us have a closer look on how the British were made. Where shall
we start? Stonehenge and King Arthur? The Celtic tribes in Britain did
not refer to themselves as Britons and did not think of each other as
fellows; King Arthur is a myth. Maybe the Battle of Hastings? A
massacre, because two ruling elites had a conflict about land and about
who was allowed to exploit the peasants – what a nice point to start.
How about the Founding of the Church of England? A King who wanted a
male heir and took the chance to get supremacy on the church (and the
wealth of the clergy) plus a Queen who used the protestant belief to
stabilise her reign, that’s for sure a reason to cherish a nation! Might
Cromwell and the First Revolution be something to start with? Of
course, especially the invasion of Ireland and the colonial,
quasi-racist regime. A landmark in English and Irish history for sure.
Shall we continue with the union between England and Scotland, where the
Scottish nobility was bribed by the English crown – if you cannot beat
them, buy them! It was of course not done to unite all ‘British
brethren’, but so England could get rid of a competitor and a permanent
threat on the British Isle and to allow the Scottish bourgeoisie to get
their deal when Britain started to conquer its Empire. One could
continue certainly, but it would only lead to one conclusion: Britain,
as every other nation, is a product of bitter fights, massacres, wars,
class struggles, economic interests, monarchical strategies and even
mere coincidences.
When the process of nation building started, no one thought of a
nation-state, but it was its result – with all the consequences. Kings
and Queens might have had in mind prestige, holding court and loyal
subjects, priests upheld the Virgin Queen versus Virgin Mary,
aristocrats and merchants cared about wealth. It ended up in a state
that had one goal: national success. Convinced of a special white
protestant mission, scared of their French, Spanish, Dutch, Portuguese,
Swedish, and other competitors, interested in loyal subjects and
soldiers, the ruling elites of Britain did all they could to spread
‘Britishness’. For over 200 years, Britishness meant Englishness because
of the economic, political and cultural dominance of English gentry and
bourgeoisie. It was taught in schools, preached in Anglican and
dissenter’s churches, portrayed in art and literature, transported even
by advertisements for Olde English products and so on. The invention of a
national heritage was not a conspiracy but based on conviction.
But one has to forget and forgive if one really wants to love one’s
country. That is what national history is about – to encourage everybody
to see the history through national glasses: Think of Britain as it is
portrayed in the upper class kitsch of English countryside in summer. Do
not think of all the people who died in the making of Britain. Or if
you do, then do not see it as the bloody suffering, the hunger, the
terror, the cynical use of human lives by politicians, capitalists,
kings, nobles, generals – see it as ‘a heroic sacrifice for all of us’.
And do not dare to ask who is ‘us’.
Some people now might say: right you are, Britain is made up.
England, Scotland, Wales, Ulster and/or Ireland – that is the real
thing! With the decline of the Empire new nationalism began to succeed
in Britain, partly invented, partly revived – and today discussions
about identity, devolution and a possible break-up of Britain catch
public attention. But this is no way out of hell, rather it is a
prolongation and intensification: One can show that what is true for
British history is also true for the details of the history of the ‘four
nations on the British Isles’. It does not make sense to wonder about
national identities and mourn about hidden and suppressed national
history. It would be better to have a closer look at what the politics
of nation-states is about. The answer to that does not lay in history.
Civic Patriotism
Some answer the question of what holds that nation-state together by
referring to an asumed decision by all the people belonging to that
nation. This understanding suggests an agreement by all with the values
and heart of the political organisation of that nation – be it the human
rights in principal, be it the constitution or the Magna Carta. In
short, it is the idea of Rousseau’s social contract founding the nation.
It might be true that indeed most citizens agree with most of the
principles that govern the societies they live in – but have they ever
truly been asked? Or can anyone enter a modern state simply by signing
the Bill of Rights after being given it by a friendly border patrol
officer at the airport? Obviously not.
It is more or less taken for granted (and actively fostered) in a
democracy that people share a belief in the political system, but it is
nothing decided by them.
Commonality and affirmation
But even if our refutations would all be wrong and any of the above
mentioned characteristics or others were the source for and of a nation,
it would only found the existence of the national context on some
self-evident basis of affiliation. It would prove, that the people in
one nation are culturally, historically or by language somehow bound to
one another. But it would still fail to explain why people should refer
positively to the nation. Even if one’s mother tongue is English, even
if grand-pa fought in WWII for the allied forces and one likes tea.
Nothing of this implies any partisanship in matters which do not affect
tea, discussions in the English language and camp fire war stories.
These features do not explain partisanship.
2. Foundation of the Nation
So far, this article has merely provided deconstruction of the myth
that nations exist because of common bonds of their subjects. But this
deconstruction can only be the beginning: the usual justifications for
nationhood are not an explaination of the nation. However, nation-states
do exist, they are far from illusions.
Nation-states’ fundamental act is their assertion of their monopoly
on violence. Nobody but the state itself may use force to break
someone’s will. That calls for people under the state’s rule and a
territory where its power is unchallenged: the nation-state asserts
itself as the supreme power in society and makes the people living on
its territory its subjects.
By declaring and exercising that power over its subjects, it creates
some similarity among them: each one of its subjects is subordinated
under its rule.
The nation is a forced community and it is based on violence: at each
border people risk their very lives and many die when trying to get in
(or out depending on its attractiveness to people). No one born in one
state is ever asked, whether they actually like it or not – they are
granted citizenship.
Thus, the popular “we” is objectively based on an act of power by the
state. Consequently, the usage of the word “we” as a shorthand for being
subject to the same monopoly of violence would not be ideological. The
British state does create the British. But this is hardly ever what is
understood when people talk about “us”. They take it as something
natural, as a quality of the people who happen to live on the area that
once has been subordinated and united by the nation-state. The talk
about ‘us’ expresses identification, a positive attitude towards the
nation:
3. Nationalism
With all its power over its subjects there is one thing the state
cannot do: it cannot create consciousness in general. In particular, it
cannot make people nationalists: it cannot create the fitting
consciousness. It can punish people for saying certain things, but it
cannot control what they think. This, they have to do themselves. Yet,
almost everyone does have a positive attitude towards ‘his’ nation.
Almost everyone does consider it as a desirable collective. This
ubiquity of nationalism leads back to the way people work and consume in
this society.
Mutual dependency
Everybody needs stuff: food, clothing, beer, Macbook Airs, the
collected works of Calvin & Hobbes …. Since most of those products
are quite complicated to get together, people are dependent on each
other through division of labour. In any form of division of labour the
producers are materially dependent on each other. However, division of
labour in this society is something quite different from a rational,
sane division of labour of producers working according to a common plan.
Liberty from each other – private property
In this society commodities are produced for the market and sold in
order to earn money. A steel manufacturer does not first and foremost
care about the steel that is produced in her factory nor what nice goods
can be made out of steel but the profit she can make. Similarly, the
workers in her factory do not have to give a damn about the final
product, they work to earn a wage. The organisation of this process is
done without direct coercion. Even the most dependent participants the
working class are not made to work using brute-force but their material
condition are enough to spark an interest in working for someone else’s
wealth. Their interest in their wage is convincing enough, because they
materially depend on it. Economic subjects pursue their own private
interests, a right granted to them by the state.
The capitalist state grants its subjects liberty from each other.
That is, no citizen may break the will of another citizen (except when
explicitly sanctioned by the state). Alice’s will is the barrier for
Bob’s will: he cannot use force to make Alice do stuff she does not want
to do. This applies in general, but it also applies with respect to
objects in particular: private property. The capitalist state insists
that, for instance, Alice may dispose over her chair factory
exclusively: Bob has no say, because it is her property; thus her will
applies exclusively. While Bob is dependent on the products (such as
chairs) produced by other citizens, Alice can be completely ignorant
towards the needs and wants of others simply because the chair factory
belongs to her. For all this it does not even matter whether Alice or
anybody is actually using the factory. One can own a piece of land in
Northern Scotland without ever leaving Cardiff; this is how fundamental
this exclusion is. Vice versa the other way around. Alice is dependent
on products by others who were granted their right to ignorance by the
highest power in society, the state. The only way they can come to an
agreement on the basis of private property is to offer their own
property in exchange; to exploit some other party’s interest in what
they have to offer. This implies collisions of interests: one is
dependent on others and is thus required to exploit their dependence on
oneself. They will try to do the same.
The fact that people busy themselves against each other in this way
is something the state has an interest in. It exploits the
self-propelled interest for its own might: to use the strength of its
national economy against other states, to use taxes to finance its own
apparatus. The state establishes, fosters and relies on an economy which
requires its participants to pursue their own interests out of their
own free will.
This economy relies on the materialism of its subjects. The state does
not command its citizens what to produce and how. It merely sets the
conditions and everyone is free to use these conditions to his own
advantage.
Law
The state controls the relationship of its subjects among themselves
and towards itself in the form of law. The capitalist state ensures that
if people have a conflict, and they will, they execute this conflict
according to its general and universal rules; usually expressed as
rights. In exchange, it offers all counterparts the guarantee that their
demands are valid and have as much reach as its law allows. The offer
of the state under the rule of law is: if you restrict yourself (i.e.
obey the law), you can make use of the highest power when pursuing your
legally approved interests. Quite practically this means that the state
arrests thieves, enforces contracts and evicts squatters. Or, if for
example a worker does not come to work breaching her employment
contract, a capitalist can take action against the worker with the help
of a civil court. Vice versa the worker can sue her boss in order to get
her redundancy pay if it is illegally withheld. No matter what
particular situation people are in as long as they can claim the law on
their side, the state will make it his case or provide the legal means
to pursue one’s goal.
Chances and opportunities
The state ensures with force that peoples’ materialism stays within
the limits set by private property and other regulations. It ensures
that property is without alternative. Thousands of coppers and judges
watch over the subjects to ensure that they are law abiding. Since this
way the subjects are first of all excluded from the immense collection
of commodities and are without alternative, they have no choice but to
make use of the miserable means – law – as a means.
As workers, owners of corner shops and investment bankers they need
their rights because any business is done in mutual dependency and
enmity of interests. The precondition for them to pursue their interests
is the state. All of them are character-masks in the capitalist
economy. As such they have an interest in the guarantee of the existing
politico-economic order so they can pursue their interests. The state
thus is the expression and the guarantor of the general public interest.
This practical necessity of dealing with the conditions set by the
state, the necessity of pursuing one’s own interest under hostile
conditions, and the offer made by the state suggest a certain way of
looking at the world: the granted liberties are not just restrictions
(e.g. when granted to others which they can use against one’s own
interest), but also offer opportunities (e.g. when applied to oneself).
This interested standpoint considers the state from the point of view
what it is for me instead of what it is.
The erroneous conclusion people draw from this misery is to translate
their own restrictions into a set of chances and opportunities, such
that even being made redundant is sometimes seen as a new opportunity in
this best of all possible worlds. Thereby citizens do not only accept
the offer they cannot refuse by the state, but are also willing to
mistake the guarantee of rights for a chance rather than a restriction.
The state first deprives one from the means of reproduction and then
offers ways of gaining access to those means. Misinterpreting these
offers as chances is like a prisoner appreciating the opportunity of
prison labour as a way to pass the time behind walls without considering
the bars as a fundamental restriction. While this misapprehension is
suggested and encouraged by the state and its agents, it cannot effect
acceptance on its own, this needs a conscious subject: she either
believes it or she does not.
It turns out state coercion is not needed: many people do believe it.
They criticise the economy as too brute and compliment the state for
neutralising its effects to some extent through social welfare
programmes by providing education, roads and environmental protection
plans. The state is seen as the tamer who domesticates the lion the lion
being either the economy as such or simply (a part of) every human
being which needs to be controlled by someone, i.e. the state.
Virtuous materialism
This materialism – which mistakes hostile conditions as chances and
opportunities – is quite a particular one. The state expects from its
subjects that they ask themselves if they are permitted that which they
want. As materialists of the decent kind they want the restriction of
everybody’s materialism in the interest of their own materialism; they exercise a virtuous or decent materialism. They do not demand the means of living but a fair wage.
This virtuous materialism has two aspects which contain the kernel of
the nationalist ideology. First, whoever follows this line, accepts the
restriction of private interests in the general public interest; this
person wants everybody’s means to be restricted according to the general
and universal rule. The nationalist call for sacrifices for the nation
contains the same train of thought. Second, it comprises the idea that
if one does exercise decency, behave virtuous and restrict one’s own
interests according to the principles of private property and such, then
one shall get what one deserves.
In virtuous materialism the initial materialism still appears. For
example, the nationalist demand “British jobs for British workers”
presupposes the submission on the one hand but calls for meeting
virtuous interests on the other.
Standpoint of the general public interest
Even the sum of interests that are followed in a virtuous manner do
not form the general public interest. Neither is the general public
interest accomplished by itself. It requires people who have it at heart
either as professionals (such as politicians and many journalists) or
as amateurs. They remind the rest of the citizenry of the fact that a
restriction as a prerequisite for the pursuit of private interests is
still a restriction. They take the perspective of what hardships have to
be imposed in the interest of the nation.
Quite often in this perspective private interests mainly appear as a
negative, as what needs to be restricted ostensibly to their own
benefit.
Nationalism
In summary: nationalism is the misunderstanding of taking nationhood
as something prior to the nation-state, which inverts the actual
relationship.
Nationalism is the loyalty towards the state as such and that
objectively implies one’s own subordination under the nation-state and
thereby under goals that do no good to people. Nationalism has nothing
to offer most of the time but “blood, toil, tears and sweat”
(Roosevelt/Churchill). People do of course not follow the logic of this
slogan because they want to suffer. Somewhere underneath the nationalism
there is the hope that the well-being of the country does mean the
well-being of its citizens.
Disappointment
Yet that the restrictions for everyone are actually useful for
oneself is refuted by reality for most people almost every day: they are
poor, live under miserable conditions and potentially work long hours
if they were so ’lucky’ to find a job. Reality presents material to
correct the mistake that the legitimacy of an interest implies support
for its realisation. The legitimate job hunt does not imply guarantee of
employment. If someone’s rights were violated and the state does
exercise its power, even then it does not necessarily imply that the
damage is repaired. If someone’s bicycle is stolen the police might
search for the thief but they will not give a new bicycle to the victim
of the theft. Instead of realising the origins of the damage to be found
in the societal set-up and to either criticise it or to simply accept
it as a given, most people proceed this disappointment with nationalist
answers. Some put them forward in their pure forms, others mix and
match.
Idealists insist on the misunderstanding that their virtuous
materialism must be realisable at least in principle. Next or above the
existing law they put an ideal of the law which should be realised.
Left-wing parties like Respect with their demands to “tax the rich” fall
into this category: they place their ideal of the state above the
actual state. The not so left-wing demand “British jobs for British
workers” follows the same logic. The materialist starting point is still
plainly visible, this ideology insists that the fundamental order
should allow these just interests to be satisfied.
Righteous people also start from the violation of their private
interests. They notice a damage, which causes them to complain. They too
insist that the fundamental order is not hostile, be it the market
economy or the nation-state. They are proud because they live according
to these principles which they accept. Searching for a cause of their
harm, they end up identifying people who violated these just principles.
As a corollary, neither them nor ‘their’ society is responsible for
their hardship. People who do nothing but complain about the fact that
‘we’ have to pay for ‘their’ mess in the aftermath of the financial
crisis, do not want to push through their interests not even in
principle. Righteous people accept austerity measures and pay cuts, but
would never leave out the point that they are not responsible for it.
This is where righteous criticism stops and thus in the most consequent
form of this position a direct link to improving one’s conditions is
missing. However virtuous the materialism was they started off with, it
is absent in the end of this train of thought.
Fascists, on the contrary, conclude that it is the system that is to
blame since those cheeky private interests pursued by others are not
sufficiently restricted. They claim that these private interests ruin
the nation. They demand that these violating interests are suppressed by
the state such that the general public interest can prevail. They do
not allow for the contradiction between the private and public interest,
they demand identification. Virtuous materialists want the general
public interest as the precondition of their private interests, fascists
want the private interests to be expressions of the general public
interest.
Fascists finally put the nation as an end in itself, surpassing all
other interests. They are the most consequential nationalists, the
apotheosis of nationalism. Fascists finally put the nation as an end in
itself, surpassing all other interests. They are the most consequential
nationalists, the apotheosis of nationalism.
Attitude towards the outside
First and foremost nationalism is an ideology of identification with
the nation. However, it is also the basis for citizens to pass a
negative judgement on their own kind – i.e. other citizens – if they are
from abroad – i.e. not citizens of the home country. To explain why
this is not some individual ‘moral failure’ one needs to look at the
material basis for this belittlement. That this world is divided into
nation-states and that no nationalist dreams of inviting all of human
kind into the fatherland is evident.
So far so general. Apartment complexes too are divided into flats and
rarely do neighbours invite each other to move in. However,
nation-states do not exist side by side, relatively unaffected by each
other, at most exchanging a more or less friendly nod when they meet in
the hallway, to stick to the analogy. They engage on the same world
market, have disputes over land and people and compete for power and
resources: they compete against each other. Some states are outright
hostile towards each other (such as Iran and the UK currently), some
form alliances in order to push their own agendas (e.g., NATO and WTO
members) and some even argue about their common currency (e.g., Germany
and Greece). The world is full of nation-states claiming to execute the
general public interest and each nation-state is confronted with its
peers disputing this claim. From the UK perspective French interests are
usually only French interests (when in disagreement) and British
interests are usually just, global and necessary. Vice versa the other
way around. That under these conditions the attitude towards foreign
states and their citizens is usually not indifferent or even positive is
no surprise.
The belittlement of other nations is a logical consequence of the
appreciation of one’s own if interests between them conflict. However,
this does not imply that someone fond of his nation must draw that
conclusion. Insofar the separation between ‘patriotism’ and
‘nationalism’ – addressed at the beginning of this article – is indeed
possible. Even though we do not believe most ’patriots’ that they do not
make this transition from just loving their own country to belittling
others, uncovering pejorative thoughts on foreigners is not a worthy
task. The admitted identification with the nation provides sufficient
material for critique; the task cannot be to prove that someone’s
ideology is secretly something else, but to show how this ideology
itself is wrong and harmful.
National separation and liberation
Some are indeed funamentally unhappy with their subordination under
the state they live in. If they cannot or do not want to join another
nation and are not critical of state domination as such, they have two
options left: to change the political system of the state or to found a
new one. Both national separation and liberation movements perceive that
the power they are subordinated to has too little or nothing to offer
to them. Their cause is to correct this mistake; to establish a just
domination by their own kind. Even where the material basis for the
virtuous materialism is missing, nationalist movements apply this ideal.
Separatists base their disagreement on the ‘finding’, that there is a
second unity within the nation which differs and should be equipped
with its own power apparatus. The material basis for this observation is
often a lack of or a rather slack application of equal treatment.
Whatever the foundation myths of their ’nation’ might be, their actually
commonality is their oppression. In most cases, it is this oppression
which creates this group and respectively the corresponding movements.
For example, the Turkish state suppresses Kurdish customs and
language. Kurds are not treated as subjects equal before the law, but
they are confronted with a general suspicion of disloyalty and of
undermining the unity of the nation. Kurds might have formal citizenship
but they do not experience the invitation of the state to use its power
to pursue their own interests like other Turkish citizens do. The
consequence the Kurdish liberation movement draws from this observation
is the demand for their own state. In Turkey nationhood is, as usual,
asserted by force and the movement towards another nationalism, the
Kurdish nationalism, is not welcomed at all by the Turkish state.
It wants all its citizens to be committed to itself, not to another
state (to be). The forceful assertions by the Turkish military who has
the monopoly on violence further encourages the separatist movement.
Separatist movements for their part often re-enact the state’s
discrimination by referring positively to the division made by the
authorities.
Those who want to liberate a pre-existing nation observe the
hostility of the state they live in towards the majority of the
population. Neither do they challenge the conception of the nation nor
do they deny the need for a matching domination. They just insist that
the current one caters to foreign or minority interests instead of the
nation. Most of these movements, after seizing power, did not improve
the livelihood of their populations since they did not challenge the
basic tenets of the economic conditions, they merely aimed at swapping
out the political (and economical) personnel. However, one might wonder,
there are indeed states where after such a national liberation a higher
living standard for the population could be observed such as Cuba,
a state which disengaged from the world market and expropriated big
capitalists within its borders. Is such a nationalism not a sign that
nationalism can appeal to people to get them enthusiastic about a
different organisation of society? If successful, would that not be
helpful in challenging the capitalist mode of production? Indeed,
improving healthcare, provision, literacy who would argue against that?
However, this does not rescind the truth that national collectives are
forced collectives and that the myths about them remain wrong. On top of
that, it is strange to rally for the interests of the people, for their
provision, for them in the name of something else; be it Christian
love, national solidarity, the glory of socialism, history or true human
nature. If a project which ostensibly is about improving the livelihood
of the people appeals to something other than the abolishment of
poverty and domination, this is a clue that this project is at least not
only about those advancements.
Both separatist and liberating nationalist movements observe a
nation-state which appears clearly hostile towards the people they claim
to represent. From that observation one could learn about the nature of
the nation-state and oppose it. However, these movements have so much
appreciation for the very subject which suppresses them that they want
one of their own. Their main experience with the nation-state is one of
suppression with brute-force. But even this demonstration of the
obnoxious quality of such a power apparatus does not manage to convince
them of the undesirability of such a thing. All the skull crushing
exercised in the name of the nation does not crush the thought that the
nation is a desirable thing. This does not diminish their bad
experience, but this experience does not justify their conclusion.
So, why anti-national?
First, nationalism simply is not correct: no myth about the
foundation of nations can be substantiated and from none of the proposed
criteria follows endorsement of the nation (or the nation-state). This
is argument enough to show that the ideology has nothing to do with
ending domination and exploitation.
Second, any nation is a forced collective, it is the result of
domination. Appreciation for the nation is appreciation for domination.
Third, nationalism is an ideology of sacrifice. It presents a cause
the nation which ostensibly justifies to soft-pedal on one’s own needs.
On top of that, in capitalist societies which always mean mass poverty
it justifies scarcity. It stands in diametrical opposition to the demand
for luxury for everyone.
Fourth, any legitimation being put forward for people to come to
terms with exploitation and subordination deserves critique. One of the
most powerful ideologies accomplishing this is nationalism, the idea of
some sort of natural belonging to a context of subordination and its
offers to make sense of the misery experienced everyday.
Originally published at http://www.junge-linke.org/
Postagens
