Polemic against the nationstate.
Now and then I hear people who espouse pride in their nation - be they American, Swedish, British or something else. But what is it they are expressing pride in, really? When I feel pride, I feel it over something I have been proud of. I am proud of what I just wrote, I am proud of the dinner I managed to make without fouling up or I am proud of having come such a long way. I might hold pride in what me and my friends have accomplished together, what a small group I have joined have done or what my party that I support has done. And I can feel ashamed for the same reason if they produce unwanted results, or if I feel it is somehow immoral.
But am I really a part of what my nation does? And more importantly, am I a part of what it once -was-? Because it seems to me that nationalists of whatever kind express a sentimental love for something, a dream more than something real. They always express their dissatisfaction with something. Sometimes in a racist manner, often imperially and at times only blindly. But there is always that "taint" that hangs over their nation - what should not be there. What needs to be corrected, and what the country is not about.
Take Sweden for example. Our "national socialists", ie, modern day neo-nazis and other "patriots" (a word that is just a simple synonym for nationalist) talk about Sweden in glowing terms. What is it they are thinking of really? Let's consider three perspectives, the rest are probably totally uninteresting. First, the vikings. The vikings were some of the most multicultural people of their time - travelling from Ireland in the west to the inner parts of Russia, down to Constantinopole. They were raiders and pirates, yes, but they were also tradesmen and settled in many places. Among them Normandie, Kiev, parts of England and Ireland, along the Volga and a large contingent served the Emperor of Constantinope as his personal guard. An Arab historian (the man who the 13th warrior was based on) even got to travel with a band of vikings, totally peacefully. I think it is unlikely that they would have agreed to any of the "purity of the race/nationstate" nonsense.
Next, the Swedish imperial age. Again, I become confused. Charles XII and Gustavus Adolphus, big heroes of the nationalists, weren't exactly racists. Charles XII got to hang out with the Turks for many long years until he became so annoying after they told him politely to consider leaving that they sent an army to throw him out. Gustavus Adolphus modernized our realm, and in both cases, they both took a great deal of help from foreigners and didn't exactly close our borders or hate people with a different colour of their skin.
Lastly, the earlier half of the 20th century in Sweden. Ruled by social democrats after the workers movement finally manages to bring part of the industralist capitalists to a halt. There were some nationalists sentiments expressed at times now and then by at least the imperialists and the later social democrats - but they had defeated the right wing. And it is the right wing that so oftenly constitutes and always supports the nationalist powers of a state, Germany in the 30's is a great example. Leftist powers are always moving -against- these destructive movements that remove all capacities for emancipation for them. It is only when they lose themselves into considering the nationstate as more important than class that they forget their reason and join up to be the soldiers of the right wing. The First World War, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany are again, good examples of when the right wing supports a growing bigoted nationalist movement because of terrible conditions, and a "joint front" with their old enemies, the right.
But my point is made. The dream of the nationstate is just that, a dream. There has never been, and will never be the "pure" Sweden that so many so-called patriots would like there to be. And neither has there been that in Germany, in America or France.
"Nationalism is the idea that a country is better because you were born in it". And that quote is true. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a culture, but a culture is something far different, and more real than a nationstate is. Even if we one day have no more nations, we will always have cultures. I enjoy parts of the Scandinavian culture, and parts of the American one. But I do not enjoy them as nationstates, and both their past has some very dark episodes. Identification with them leads to an oversimplification of the way the world really is like, and more importantly, it confuses our real goals with romantic dreamers and with those who benefit from an increased love of the nation.
And that is but one group - the oligarchs in power. Usually capitalist, but sometimes politicians. Marx was right when he issued his imperative: "Workers in all countries - unite yourselves!" without that, we are all doomed to loose a battle against the flexible and moving capital as we try to huddle behind our nations and make alliances of convenience with reactionaries.
The lefts main fault of today is acting as a reactionary - when it should act as a revolutionary. The work that lies before any succesful movement is revolutionary in that it breaks boundaries and it breaks apart the lies and illusions of the old to carve a new beginning. It is revolutionary because it denies the power that some things have, and thereby emancipate us. It is revolutionary because it is sheer, hard work that will be met by powerful reactionary forces that will rally the nationstate against the labourer.
And when I say labourer I am not talking about the class that is more or less gone of industrial workers, I am speaking of anyone and everyone who is used by the system of today. Ie, most of us. The idea that socialists are either intellectuals sitting in their cafés or those who work with their hands and backs in the fires of the forges is something that must be removed. Analysts, reporters, office workers, police, soldiers and everyone else - wherever there exists a hierarchy that is not one that the people itself has a power over, one that is not democratic.
Because in the end, every democrat that thinks longer than his own nose must realize that there is more to democracy than a mere vote once every four years. Democracy is an ongoing process of emancipation, intensively tied to the left in polemic against the right. We are in the cradle of democracy as it is. Perhaps one day, we will be full, total democrats.
Until then, we must strike away all ideas of relying on the nationstates as a buffert, or believing that it has powers that it does not have, or thinking that it is indeed a good thing, or dreaming of a time that never was, or dreaming of a time that never will be, or thinking that it will solve everything for us. Explanations that lead us to make it alright to "break a few eggs" must not be accepted. Not for the working class, and not for the nationstate.
The only damage that will be done by the left is the damage that rises out of the reaction of the right wing, of whatever kind. The only destruction that can ever be condoned is when we do not fire the first shot. What the left must do is instead creating it's own way, and moving towards it boldly and in a democratic, discursive manner. It must be open and flexible, and it must know no borders. Capitalists certainly do not. And as we have seen, there is no borders that are acceptable for us - every true friend is a good friend. Our weapons are obedience, discipline, intellect, endurance and hard work. Obedience, you ask? Yes, obedience - to the rules that we recognize as right. Obedience to not harming another physically, but obedience to always working towards our goal of emancipation. The rest is critique, understanding, humanism and teaching. If we are ever to succeed, we must broaden our horizons and work with powers in the public and private sector, immigrants, the elderly, the young, everyone who is willing to work for our emancipation, to take back control of our means of production and our means of living a good life. The socialist does not wish to take anything away from anyone - she simply wishes to give everyone what everyone should be able to enjoy.
But am I really a part of what my nation does? And more importantly, am I a part of what it once -was-? Because it seems to me that nationalists of whatever kind express a sentimental love for something, a dream more than something real. They always express their dissatisfaction with something. Sometimes in a racist manner, often imperially and at times only blindly. But there is always that "taint" that hangs over their nation - what should not be there. What needs to be corrected, and what the country is not about.
Take Sweden for example. Our "national socialists", ie, modern day neo-nazis and other "patriots" (a word that is just a simple synonym for nationalist) talk about Sweden in glowing terms. What is it they are thinking of really? Let's consider three perspectives, the rest are probably totally uninteresting. First, the vikings. The vikings were some of the most multicultural people of their time - travelling from Ireland in the west to the inner parts of Russia, down to Constantinopole. They were raiders and pirates, yes, but they were also tradesmen and settled in many places. Among them Normandie, Kiev, parts of England and Ireland, along the Volga and a large contingent served the Emperor of Constantinope as his personal guard. An Arab historian (the man who the 13th warrior was based on) even got to travel with a band of vikings, totally peacefully. I think it is unlikely that they would have agreed to any of the "purity of the race/nationstate" nonsense.
Next, the Swedish imperial age. Again, I become confused. Charles XII and Gustavus Adolphus, big heroes of the nationalists, weren't exactly racists. Charles XII got to hang out with the Turks for many long years until he became so annoying after they told him politely to consider leaving that they sent an army to throw him out. Gustavus Adolphus modernized our realm, and in both cases, they both took a great deal of help from foreigners and didn't exactly close our borders or hate people with a different colour of their skin.
Lastly, the earlier half of the 20th century in Sweden. Ruled by social democrats after the workers movement finally manages to bring part of the industralist capitalists to a halt. There were some nationalists sentiments expressed at times now and then by at least the imperialists and the later social democrats - but they had defeated the right wing. And it is the right wing that so oftenly constitutes and always supports the nationalist powers of a state, Germany in the 30's is a great example. Leftist powers are always moving -against- these destructive movements that remove all capacities for emancipation for them. It is only when they lose themselves into considering the nationstate as more important than class that they forget their reason and join up to be the soldiers of the right wing. The First World War, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany are again, good examples of when the right wing supports a growing bigoted nationalist movement because of terrible conditions, and a "joint front" with their old enemies, the right.
But my point is made. The dream of the nationstate is just that, a dream. There has never been, and will never be the "pure" Sweden that so many so-called patriots would like there to be. And neither has there been that in Germany, in America or France.
"Nationalism is the idea that a country is better because you were born in it". And that quote is true. There is nothing wrong with enjoying a culture, but a culture is something far different, and more real than a nationstate is. Even if we one day have no more nations, we will always have cultures. I enjoy parts of the Scandinavian culture, and parts of the American one. But I do not enjoy them as nationstates, and both their past has some very dark episodes. Identification with them leads to an oversimplification of the way the world really is like, and more importantly, it confuses our real goals with romantic dreamers and with those who benefit from an increased love of the nation.
And that is but one group - the oligarchs in power. Usually capitalist, but sometimes politicians. Marx was right when he issued his imperative: "Workers in all countries - unite yourselves!" without that, we are all doomed to loose a battle against the flexible and moving capital as we try to huddle behind our nations and make alliances of convenience with reactionaries.
The lefts main fault of today is acting as a reactionary - when it should act as a revolutionary. The work that lies before any succesful movement is revolutionary in that it breaks boundaries and it breaks apart the lies and illusions of the old to carve a new beginning. It is revolutionary because it denies the power that some things have, and thereby emancipate us. It is revolutionary because it is sheer, hard work that will be met by powerful reactionary forces that will rally the nationstate against the labourer.
And when I say labourer I am not talking about the class that is more or less gone of industrial workers, I am speaking of anyone and everyone who is used by the system of today. Ie, most of us. The idea that socialists are either intellectuals sitting in their cafés or those who work with their hands and backs in the fires of the forges is something that must be removed. Analysts, reporters, office workers, police, soldiers and everyone else - wherever there exists a hierarchy that is not one that the people itself has a power over, one that is not democratic.
Because in the end, every democrat that thinks longer than his own nose must realize that there is more to democracy than a mere vote once every four years. Democracy is an ongoing process of emancipation, intensively tied to the left in polemic against the right. We are in the cradle of democracy as it is. Perhaps one day, we will be full, total democrats.
Until then, we must strike away all ideas of relying on the nationstates as a buffert, or believing that it has powers that it does not have, or thinking that it is indeed a good thing, or dreaming of a time that never was, or dreaming of a time that never will be, or thinking that it will solve everything for us. Explanations that lead us to make it alright to "break a few eggs" must not be accepted. Not for the working class, and not for the nationstate.
The only damage that will be done by the left is the damage that rises out of the reaction of the right wing, of whatever kind. The only destruction that can ever be condoned is when we do not fire the first shot. What the left must do is instead creating it's own way, and moving towards it boldly and in a democratic, discursive manner. It must be open and flexible, and it must know no borders. Capitalists certainly do not. And as we have seen, there is no borders that are acceptable for us - every true friend is a good friend. Our weapons are obedience, discipline, intellect, endurance and hard work. Obedience, you ask? Yes, obedience - to the rules that we recognize as right. Obedience to not harming another physically, but obedience to always working towards our goal of emancipation. The rest is critique, understanding, humanism and teaching. If we are ever to succeed, we must broaden our horizons and work with powers in the public and private sector, immigrants, the elderly, the young, everyone who is willing to work for our emancipation, to take back control of our means of production and our means of living a good life. The socialist does not wish to take anything away from anyone - she simply wishes to give everyone what everyone should be able to enjoy.
posted by Björn at 6:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home