On Tue, 07 May 1996 09:38:10 -0600 (CST) chris chase-dunn wrote:
> But progressives need to be wary about joining up with economic
> nationalists like Buchanan. The progressive attack on neo-liberalism
> needs to be organized at national, international and global levels if it is
> to succeed. Socialism at the national level has never worked in the past
> and it certainly will not work in a world that is more interlinked than ever
> before.
> This does not mean that local, regional and national-level
> struggles are irrelevant. They are just as relevant as they always have
> been. But they need to also have a global strategy and global-level
> cooperation lest they be isolated and defeated.
i couldn't agree more. but i hear a lot of core leftists (more in britain than
the us) dismissing national liberation movements, perhaps failing to distinguish
between emancipatory nationalisms (which take many of their roots from the
enlightenment) and core nationalisms (like Buchanan's and Thatcher's, which
betray the enlightenment).
in this respect, i believe several recent commentators on wsn are wrong
in their attitudes toward emancipatory national movements and especially in their
seeming willingness to accept national boundaries which have been set up as part
of a historical process of oppression. for my part, i would LOVE to see scotland
independent, although i also realise that the character of an independent scotland
is problematic and of greater importance than independence of itself.
marx's writings on ireland are quite interesting in this respect. he
counsels british socialists to support irish nationalism, and calls on irish workers
to advance the national struggle as their main duty to internationalism, on the
basis that this is their greatest weapon in advancing the international struggle and
weakening the ruling classes in the british core. obviously, things have
changed since marx's time, but enlightened nationalism today may be an important
means of advancing the progressive potential of regional bodies like the european
union...the breakup of britain would weaken one of the most reactionary elements
of europe, giving progressives in places like scotland a much greater influence
than they have now, since their position on issues like the social chapter is simply
stifled by london. as chris indicates, however, this can only work if national
movements on the european periphery organize amongst themselves and also
with progressive movements throughout europe.
> It was not the Enlightenment
> philosophy that caused Europe to dominate and exploit the world. Rather
> it was the military and economic power generated by capitalism that
> made European hegemony possible. The ideals of the Enlightment had often to
> be stretched or ignored in the process.
>
hear, hear. this is, however, a historical process and past hegemonic practices
obviously have effects on peripheral and working-class possibilities today. again,
this is why i disagree with recent comments about forgetting historical
responsibility, letting by-gones be by-gones, starting anew. by-gones have not
gone bye-bye. although the masses and even middle class academics of the core
cannot be held responsible for the sins of their ancestors, they are responsible if
they ignore the continuation of power structures that were constructed by their
ancestors. the disagreement between buchanan and the neoliberals is simply
about how best to keep these structures in place.
Denis O'Hearn
Sociology Department
Queens University
Belfast