Lessons For The Left
Lesson 5 – There Is No Such Thing Today as Progressive Nationalism
Paul has supported the idea of Scottish independence, going back to the 2014 referendum. He talks of “progressive nationalism in Scotland”, but that is an oxymoron. There is no such thing today as “progressive nationalism”, certainly not as far as Scotland is concerned.
As Lenin put it,
“As the party of the proletariat, the Social-Democratic Party considers it to be its positive and principal task to further the self-determination of the proletariat in each nationality rather than that of peoples or nations. We must always and unreservedly work for the very closest unity of the proletariat of all nationalities, and it is only in isolated and exceptional cases that we can advance and actively support demands conducive to the establishment of a new class state or to the substitution of a looser federal unity, etc., for the complete political unity of a state.)
The campaign for Scottish independence from Britain is as reactionary as is the campaign for Brexit from Europe. If we take the main nationalist party in Scotland, the SNP, it was traditionally considered to be nothing but the party of “Tartan Tories”. Its superficial shift leftwards was no doubt driven by the usual populism of nationalist parties, as the Tories themselves lost their traditional majority support in Scotland, to Labour. The SNP only look “progressive” compared to the bankrupt nature of a decadent Scottish Labour Party that had also drifted further and further into the camp of conservative social-democracy. SNP governments have acted no different to Tory government in Westminster, and often worse. But, more importantly, there is no progressive solution for Scottish workers from nationalism, any more than there is a progressive solution for British workers from Brexit. The idea of building social-democracy in one country, applied to the tiny Scottish nation is even more utopian and reactionary than the same idea when applied to Brexit.
It can be seen how a case for independence can be made if Britain is taken out of the EU, and under which conditions, an independent Scotland remained inside the EU. Socialists could defend such an outcome on the basis that Scottish workers were able, thereby, to remain united with the much larger EU working-class. Its possible even to see how Scotland could prosper under such conditions, as English capital moved, quickly, to Scotland, in order to remain inside the EU, and avoid all of the additional costs and frictions involved in being outside the single market. But, a look at the reality indicates why such a situation would be reactionary. It would mean a border would have to be erected between Scotland and England. As English capital moved to Scotland, it would put increasing pressure on English workers to accept lower wages and conditions, and so on, as a means of trying to prevent such a drain. There would be increasing competition between English and Scottish workers, particularly near the border, which would drive a division between them that would be far more immediate and decisive than any countervailing forces resulting from Scotland remaining inside the EU.
Yet, its absolutely clear that the main factor driving towards Scottish independence, now, is the reality of having Brexit imposed upon them. If Brexit was not an issue, let alone the potential of a No Deal Brexit, the question of another independence referendum would not even be on the table. Socialists should have argued, prior to 2016, that the EU referendum required that the wishes of all nations, within the UK, had equal weight, so that the vote against Brexit in Scotland and Northern Ireland would have acted as a block upon it. The most obvious means of arguing against such independence, therefore, would be for English socialists to be continuing to argue for opposition to Brexit, to hold out to Scotland the potential for Brexit to be reversed by the election of a future Labour government, and continued opposition to the Tories Brexit here and now. But, rather than doing that, Paul argues for rolling over, and simply accepting the reactionary Brexit decision, a decision, which now has only minority support!
Paul then offers Scotland the prospect of a federal United Kingdom. But, if the main concern of Scotland is Brexit, how does that in any way help them? It doesn't. In fact, it could make their position worse, as a rapidly declining British economy, simply sees a federal state in Scotland having to contend with the problems of a small economy within the context of that declining British economy, forced to try to raise the finances for its own spending from internal resources, and so on, and now without the advantage of being able to orient towards the EU, or the ability, thereby, to attract capital from England into Scotland.
But, as seen earlier, for Marxists, federalism is a compromise that may have to be accepted in the process of creating a one and indivisible republic, i.e. a unified state, such as we might have to accept as an interim in creating a United States of Europe, but it can never be something we support as against an already existing unified state. It is necessary for a single unified state to be able to pursue consistent measures throughout the nation, and on that basis, also, when that state is the state of our class enemies, it is precisely that which calls forth a single class struggle of all the workers against it, irrespective of nationality. The answer to the problems of Scottish workers can never come from nationalism, which is a reactionary diversion, dividing them from the rest of the working-class in Britain, but can only come from a unified working-class struggle against our class enemies and their state. As Lenin put it we seek the self-determination of the proletariat, not the self-determination of people's or nations.
Having quoted the current opinion polls showing majority support for Scottish independence, Paul says,
“Thinking strategically, that means Scotland is going to leave the UK at some point before 2050.”
No it doesn't, because that is just an unwarranted extrapolation from current data, without taking into consideration what might change during that time, including what might change as a result of socialists offering Scottish workers a real socialist alternative, as against the reactionary diversions of nationalism or federalism. What Paul's approach amounts to is a tailing after, and appeasement of, these reactionary elements, and the same is true in relation to his acceptance of the reactionary Brexit decision, which also seems to amount to an attempt to appease those reactionary sections of the English working-class, in the hope of building a purely electoral coalition for the limited purpose of obtaining a Labour government.
So, Paul says,
“The class dynamics that have emerged across the UK since 2010 are even more challenging. The working class is bifurcating into two distinct and sometimes culturally hostile groups.”
But, that has always been the case. The working-class has always included a sizeable chunk of reactionaries who did not vote, or who, under certain conditions, voted for reactionary parties like Moseley's fascists, the NF, BNP etc., as well as the working-class Tory vote. Even in terms of the Labour vote – and often Labour membership – it always incorporated a large contingent of racists, homophobes, and sexists. You could only not see this if you never really looked for it, which many avoided doing! Paul continues,
“This is evidenced by the collapse of Labour’s support in small town ex-industrial communities, simultaneously with its loss of support among young, educated workers in cities to the Greens, Libdems and nationalists.”
But, in actual fact, Labour, in 2017, picked up much of the latter, and did so precisely by being seen to be the best option for stopping Brexit! In fact, as I set out some time ago, in relation to the metropolitan elite myth, the division is not between old industrial towns and metropolitan centres, but between a section of older reactionary workers, the retired and chronically unemployed, and younger, better educated workers, wherever they live. The latter also live in the old industrial towns alongside those older workers, the retired and atomised etc., with their reactionary views and bigotry. The only difference is the proportion of the population that each comprises in these different areas.
In 2017, Labour held on to the red wall seats, even though its vote there has been declining since 1997, and had been declining in such areas steadily since the 1950's, because it was able to win the votes of these younger workers, as well as of some of those who would traditionally have voted Liberal, or Green. The fact is, also, that, even in those seats, a majority of those who voted Labour in 2015, also voted Remain in 2016. The fact that it was able to attract the votes of the young, including those that either would not have voted, or voted Liberal, Green etc., is shown by the fact that an even larger proportion of its 2017 voters, voted Remain in 2016, than the proportion of its 2015 voters who did so. It was that coalition that enabled Labour in 2017 not only to hold on to those seats, but also to significantly improve its position over 2015, the biggest increase in Labour's vote share since 1945.
What did for Labour in 2019, was Corbyn's insistence on pushing his own pro-Brexit stance. It meant that progressive Labour voters, especially in those red wall seats had little reason to turn out to vote for a Brexit supporting Labour Party. Indeed, in the Spring, 60% even of Labour members deserted Labour for the Liberals and Greens, and Plaid, and even more of the Labour voters. Still less did the Liberals, Greens or Plaid voters see any point in voting tactically for Labour under such conditions, as they had done in 2017. Yet, Paul wants to compound that error by abandoning opposition to Brexit, and accepting it as a fait accompli.
No comments:
Post a Comment