Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:02:21 -0400
Subject: FW: AUT: Fw: [right-left] The national issue in the year 2000



-- 
"solidarity means sharing the same risks" - Che
( la solidarita significa correre gli stessi rischi)

----------
From: rc-am <rcollins-AT-netlink.com.au>
To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Subject: AUT: Fw: [right-left] The national issue in the year 2000
Date: Mon, Aug 21, 2000, 11:26 AM



----- Original Message -----
From: "Fabel van de illegaal" <lokabaal-AT-dsl.nl>
To: <right-left-AT-savanne.ch>
Sent: Tuesday, 22 August 2000 12:56
Subject: [right-left] The national issue in the year 2000


The Dutch version of his article was published in the summer 2000-issue of
the anti-racist newspaper of De Fabel van de illegaal

The national issue in the year 2000

By: Koen van de Meulen

Around 1900 an international debate took place on "the national issue".
What should the Left-wing movement do with the fast-rising nationalism? Was
this strongly mobilising ideology a threat to the theory of socialism or
could it be a possibility to enhance the power base of the Left ideology?
Almost a century later this issue seems more of current interest than ever.
Developments like the nationalist wars in the Balkans and the growth of the
far Right ask for a Leftist answer. After the disappearance of the "real
existing socialism" (read: dictatorial state capitalism) with its
Marxist-Leninist ideology, which postulated the principle of "every nation
its own state", now there is a chance to sharpen radical Left ideology in
anti-nationalist direction.

Over the past year the Dutch radical Left organisation De Fabel van de
illegaal paid much attention to (far) Right influences in Left-wing
campaigns. Criticism of nationalism played an important role in this. De
Fabel criticized for example Kurdish and Basque liberation nationalism.
Lately, a discussion has arisen with reference to nationalist elements in
the campaign for the imprisoned Basque activist Esteban Murillo. Murillo
has been accused of taking part in actions by the ETA, and despite a
support campaign, he was handed over by the Dutch state to Spain, although
it was proven that the Spanish state tortured Murillo. The discussion
centres on the question if anything like a "good" Leftist nationalism
really exists.

Nations and nationalism

"Nations do not make states and nationalism, but the other way round". Says
the British historian Eric Hobsbawm in his book "Nation and Nationalism
since 1780". In this book he describes the origin and development of the
notions of "nation" and nationalism. With this he builds on the work of
Gellner and Anderson who have written extensively about the myths of
"nation" and nationalism. "Nationalism is not the awakening of nations to
self-consciousness: it invents nations where they do not exist", writes
Gellner.

They assume that "nations" and also "peoples" are not natural, but that
they are created. As opposed to what nationalists want us to believe,
"nations" and "peoples" are not the pivots in the history of mankind. Until
200 years ago people could barely conceive the idea of a "nation". They
mostly felt connected to their own family, village or city, guild and
social rank, least of all to an abstract community like a "nation".
Therefore it is difficult to give a definition of the notion of "nation",
for the meaning of this word has changed through time. Where it meant
simply "people" at the time of the French Revolution, just in the meaning
of the inhabitants of a territory, "nation" was later defined in connection
to factors like "ethnicity", language and culture. This last meaning is
also the one that the concept of "nation" has in this article.

Patriotic nationalism

At the end of the eighteenth and during the nineteenth century the modern
state arose. This proved to be an extraordinary efficient form of governing
in the hands of the ruling class. However, its relatively sudden arising
involved a legitimacy problem. In the old days, religion and the social
hierarchy of the feudal system kept the people obedient. These institutions
didn't fit in with the new dominant ideology of liberalism and they could
even stand in the way of an efficient functioning of capitalism. The
ideology of nationalism appeared to be a good remedy to strengthen the
loyalty to the state even further, and so the power of the state too.
A communal tongue, spoken through the entire country, was developed to make
the state apparatus function more efficiently and to create an imagined
feeling of solidarity among the inhabitants of the state. Also, a communal
history and all sorts of traditions were created. The goal was that people
would perceive themselves as part of the "patria", the native country, and
not per se as members of a "nation" or "people". The best example of this
type of nationalism is the United States. With the help of this "patriotic"
nationalism, France and Great Britain became two mighty unified states. For
all cases applied: first there was a state, only then the "nation". This is
exactly the opposite of what rulers and nationalists want us to believe.

Xenophobic nationalism

By the end of the nineteenth century a more ethnic nationalism arose that
wasn't by definition connected to a state. Where at first language and
culture played central roles, "ethnicity" also became increasingly
important as a criterion for "being a nation". This xenophobic nationalism
derived its power mostly from defining "the other". A scapegoat outside the
own "nation" was appointed as the cause of all misery. That scapegoat could
be minorities in the own country, but also other "nations" or
"cosmopolitans". The working class should reconcile to the capitalists, for
supposedly everyone belonged to the same "nation". Economic problems would
be the fault of Jews or immigrant workers. Or, as in much Right-wing
anti-freetrade rhetoric, of workers in other countries that produce goods
cheaper.

States didn't shun the use of this xenophobic nationalism. The German state
was even partly based on this type of nationalism. In the twentieth century
it led also to two nationalist world wars and genocide on a dreadfully
large scale. This xenophobic nationalism was also always a threat to states
themselves. Separatism rose its head and flourished, and it still does.

"Left-wing nationalism"?

In the recent discussion on nationalism some Left-wing people are trying to
justify this ideology by distinguishing a special "Left-wing nationalism"
from the more xenophobic forms. This progressive nationalism is supposedly
characterised by Leftist values like tolerance, freedom and equality. For
that matter, many "liberal nationalists" also appeal to these values in an
effort to distinguish their ideology from "wrong" nationalism.
History shows us that such a "Leftist nationalism" is not very desirable
and hardly possible. One can roughly distinguish five historical phases in
which nationalism had different meanings and political colours. According
to Hobsbawm the notions of "nation" and nationalism originate from the time
of the French Revolution. In this first phase the notion of "nation" is
used in connection to the rising idea of democracy. "The sovereignity to
the people" or "to the nation" "was a progressive claim that opposed the
feudal system. Especially in the beginning "nation" stood for the interests
of the common women and men and there was little connection with language,
culture or "ethnicity".

In the second phase, after 1870, a nationalism based on "ethnicity" entered
the stage. In the end, this led to the first World War. At the end of the
war, the third phase started. For during the peace talks the "Wilson
doctrine" was employed as much as possible. According to that doctrine all
"peoples" had the right to self-determination and thus the right to form
their own state. For a long time this principle made the core of liberal
nationalism. In this phase, nationalism coupled with the rise of fascism,
wich ended in the Second World War and with the murder on millions of Jews,
Roma and Sinti, homosexuals, psychiatric patients  and socialists.
The fourth phase after the Second World War was marked by a ideological
dominance of the Left. Because of that dominance nationalism was conceived
as a Left-wing concept, also because of the absence of a strong Right-wing
interpretation of the idea. In this fourth phase, we see many national
liberation struggles in Latin-America, Africa and Asia.

Anti-Americanism

At this moment we have arrived at the fifth phase. Following the fall of
the Berlin Wall (but actually already before that) the influence of
Left-wing ideology quickly eroded and the Right took the ideological lead.
The Left became confused about its basic ideas. Take for example the
confusion that is caused in Left-wing circles by the anti-Americanism of
the new Right and its interfering in Left-wing solidarity campaigns with
liberation movements.

What to do? One possibility is to distinguish more clearly between "good"
Leftist and "wrong" Rightist nationalism, like the solidarity committee for
Esteban Murillo is trying. However, De Fabel van de illegaal thinks that
the Left should take a firm anti-nationalist standpoint.

A construction by the elite

"It is also worthy to point at the fact that the institutions of slavery,
marriage, class and state, necessarily developed the first ideologies of
racism, sex-roles, class-elitism and nationalism to justify all these
institutions. These ideologies where indissolubly connected to the ideology
that stimulated a male competition for status and property, beside which
they originally arose and without which they probably had not been able to
continue to exist", Hoch wrote in his "White Hero, Black Beast".
History teaches us that the ruling class invented nationalism. The
"national idea" was born in the heads of a small elite of intellectuals and
rulers only a few centuries ago. Therefore, it isn't surprising that
nationalism is an ideology employed by this ruling class of white,
heterosexual men. They invented the "nation". The norms and values of the
"nation" are the patriarchal, heterosexual and capitalist norms and values
of the elite.

The myth of national unity strengthened the power base of the leaders of
the state and their facilities to cash in taxes and to conduct war. It also
is a great weapon against class war, socialism and feminism. Mutual
differences and opposite interests are denied and replaced by stressing the
difference with "the other".

Rightist conceptions

The fact that "nations" are myths invented and applied by the ruling elite,
makes it very difficult to use nationalism as a liberation ideology against
its creator. By adopting the ideas connected to nationalism "Leftist
nationalists" start analysing the world in a Rightist way, in a way
invented by their opponents. By thinking in nationalist terms one is forced
to think along lines of national, "ethnic" or territorial defined
differences.
Thus nowadays, fashionable notions such as culture and identity are
defined, even by the Left, along national and "racial" lines. However, many
Leftists in the Netherlands will feel more affiliation with the Left in
other countries than with the Dutch elite. One's political conviction and
social class should foremost define culture and identity. But, the longer
the Left operates within nationalist ways of thinking, the more it affirms
the myths that were invented against the Left and feminism.

According to nationalists women have a special role to fulfil within the
"nation". Take for example nationalist metaphorical language. The "nation"
is presented as something female, as "the fertile mother country", that has
to be protected by strong men because of her defencelessness. Thus soldiers
and soccer players would have to defend the virtue of their country. The
"nation" enables men to feel superior above women and outsiders by ruling
them. Women are expected to reproduce the "nation" biologically by means of
their posterity and symbolically by their supposed higher decency. Only
pure and modest women would be able to serve their "nation". This
"necessity" for purity mostly brings along an extremely traditional and
suppressing role pattern.

Unintentionally, the Left might support new Right strategies when it keeps
thinking and arguing in terms of "nations", "peoples" and nationalism, even
if it tries to do so from an emancipating perspective. The new Right
nowadays tries to make these nationalist conceptions legitimate and
acceptable again, as a basis for a new far Right-wing ideology. They now
use these notions in an, at a first glance, "liberal" and "enlightened"
way. But that will change as soon as they attain some influence.

Would it be a coincidence that the Europeans who had honest convictions
about an "enlightened" nationalism, both before the First and the Second
World War, witnessed a growing "Rightist nationalist" movement appearing
right beside them at the political stage?  Perhaps racism, exclusion and
even genocide are inherent to the notion of nationalism.

Liberation struggle

Western nationalism is not the same as the Leftist "liberation nationalism"
or "emancipatory nationalism" in the made poor countries. But just as with
women's struggle, emancipation can not be the final goal. According to
feminist theory emancipation simply means obtaining a place in male
dominated society by using "male", patriarchal and macho ways. In the same
way colonies that have become independent can only obtain a place in the
capitalist world system by being as oppressive and exploiting as the
Western states themselves. Therefore national liberation can't be a goal in
itself.

It is important that the Left keeps asking itself why a particular
liberation struggle should deserve support. Is it just about nationalism,
or is the struggle for independence a first step in a more containing
social struggle? Perhaps it is because of a false class analyses that the
Western Left sometimes unconditionally supported the nationalism of the
southern liberation movements. In anti-imperialist theory the anti-thesis
North-South had replaced the old class contradiction of capital and labour.
The South had become the new revolutionary subject. Quite a few times
almost all the inhabitants of countries in the South were seen as the
revolutionary class, and therefore their nationalism had to be supported
unconditionally. However, this obscured the class- and sex-differences in
these southern countries and in addition silenced class struggle in the
North.

Koen van de Meulen is a member of the anti-racist organisation De Fabel van
de illegaal, Leiden (Holland). More articles like this can be found on the
english part our website: www.dsl.nl/lokabaal/english.htm

_______________________________________________
Right-left mailing list
Right-left-AT-savanne.ch
http://coyote.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/right-left





     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



     --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---