• A
second instinct is to be suspicious about nationhood. The suspicions that I
have in mind do not concern (or do not merely concern) nationalism’s
blood-and-soil manifestations. They concern the circumstance that nation states
are institutions. As institutions, nation states belong – and are required to
belong – in an international world order. This order is neoliberalism. If this
is so, September 18th offers a choice between two forms of nationalism –
“Scottish” on the one hand and “British” on the other[4] – and, thus, a choice
between two pro-neoliberal positions. Despite these remarks, can a nation state
(for example, an independent Scotland) set itself against neoliberal norms?
[…]
Does
Scottish independence provide an ‘opportunity’ to move (or to start moving)
beyond capitalism? It is difficult to reply that, yes, an opportunity presents
itself. This is partly because any state moving in an anti-neoliberal direction
faces all-too-familiar opposition. What happens if an independent Scotland
takes its oil industry into public ownership? What happens if an independent
Scotland takes a principled stance against the politics of austerity – and
refuses to shoulder what Yes Scotland terms ‘a fair share of the UK national
debt’? What happens if an independent Scotland decides to leave an alliance
armed by nuclear weapons? In such situations, a state learns what membership in
a neoliberal word order entails. A foretaste – the merest foretaste – of the
pressure to be expected was the Ineos lockout at Grangemouth in 2013.
[…]
What
I have said about ‘opportunity’ is not to be taken as a declaration against
anti-neoliberal struggle. It is to be taken as an indication of difficulties to
which institutional struggle is exposed. An anti-neoliberal struggle which
focuses on national independence is struggle which focuses on a specific
institution. In 2014, a nation state belongs in a world order that is
increasingly well policed. This being so, a struggle for national independence
and against neoliberalism is a struggle against itself. In a sense, this
contradiction has been present in all forms of social democracy. In a
neoliberal world, however, the contradiction is acute.
[…]
A
danger with national independence as an issue is that it threatens to engulf
all else. All other issues which have emancipatory meaning – peace, equality,
social justice, participatory democracy – tend to be seen through the
independence issue as a lens. If national independence is viewed as an
‘opportunity’ (Tariq Ali) which makes other goals achievable, the élan and
excitement and moral seriousness of issues such as peace and justice come to be
transferred to the independence issue.
[...]
Does it greatly matter if the left succumbs to this
danger? My response is that it matters profoundly. To the extent that campaigns
come to focus on national independence, they allow themselves to become
incorprated in an institutionalist world. Earlier, I suggested that a choice
between “Yes” and “No” on September 18th is a choice between two neoliberal
positions. To make the choice between “Yes” and “No” the pivotal issue in
present-day Scottish politics is to step away from interaction and on to
territory where neoliberal criteria apply. If such a step were merely a loss on
the left’s part, it would already be disastrous. It is more: it is to invite
every single-issue campaign, however everyday, to see itself in relation to
institutions and to adopt a state-centred gaze. If this is so, the independence
referendum has already performed chilling and debilitating work. It has
domesticated a left that dreamt of less institutional and more interactive
things.
Common Sense, Scottish
Thought and Current Politics - Richard Gunn - Posted on July 26, 2014 by
Bellacaledonia
http://www.richard-gunn.com/pdf/scottish_article.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment