Tuesday, March 31, 2009

Marx was right about nation states

I remember growing up being told how Africans were not like us in the sense that they were incapable of governing in a stable way. There were all these tribal conflicts and governments that lasted a year before they were overthrown. (the role of the imperialist countries in the process were always absent) . This nationalist view serves a purpose as it is inherently racist (nationalist struggles against imperialism being somewhat different) whether it's directed against Kenyans or the Irish, and the Irish were recipients of this slander by British capitalism long before Africans were.

As I discovered politics and especially socialist politics, the history of how African nation states developed, imposed from without by the imperialist countries (which is why many of them are very rectangular in form) made perfect sense. Also, why tribal consciousness was stronger became apparent. National consciousness, the idea that you are Nigerian first as opposed to Yoruba or Ibo, had not had the same period of tine to develop as European national consciousness did.

But now the nation state is the dominant political and geographical formation.

We often hear them talk about sovereign rights in the pages of the capitalist press. Sovereignty is sacrosanct. The growth of the productive forces has created, independent of the capitalists' will, a world economy that has forced them to create global structures to ensure a stable and secure environment for plunder, but these structures cannot eliminate the competition and antagonisms that arise due to this inherent and insoluble contradiction of capitalism---independent nation states within a world economy.

The meeting beginning in London tomorrow is another example. The G20, up from the G8 and including former colonial countries like China and India etc. is meeting to try and design a united, collective response to the present global crisis. But it is doomed before it starts. There is already significant division between the different nations and today, France threatened to walk out of the meeting if its demands for increased regulation are not met. The decline of US capitalism's influence relative to its rivals, especially China, will strengthen this trend.

Nationalism, patriotism and flag waving (the red flag, the flag of working class unity, excluded) are ultimately racist and counter to the interests of working people. It is saying that I am better than you because I am English or German, Brazilian or Ethiopian.

I experienced a perfect example of this when I went to the concert recently. The program included a cello concerto by a local artist, a "world" concerto celebrated a global family and included three other soloists. One played the Oud from Iran, another that two stringed Chinese instrument and the other, an Indian stringed instrument and they all interacted with the cello. This was to signify world unity. But before the piece, everyone got up, put their hands on their hearts and started singing an anthem that claims belonging to one nation above all others is an advantage. We are braver, more free, more honorable and proud than anyone else. What a contradiction.

I know it takes me a while but to get to what spurred me to write this today. US treasury secretary, Tim Geitner (the former New York fed chief who forgot to pay his taxes) commenting on the goal of the US for the world economy said that regulation would remain a "soverign" issue: "We are not going to give anyone else the responsibility for deciding what balance between stability and efficiency is right for our markets" he warned the US's rivals on the day before they are to meet in London to develop a collective response to the crisis.

Two things came to my mind immediately. What workers in other countries must be thinking, particularly in the former colonial world where the US, through the IMF and World bank has forced upon these nations policies that devastated their societies and caused untold misery--no respect for sovereignty there.

And how Geitner's comments prove so clearly the imapasse, the dead end, that capitalism is in. In such a situation, where the productive forces of competing nation states have to produce for a global economy, how can the production of our needs on a global scale, be determined when national interests between competing capitalist is the starting point? The answer is simple--it can't. It can only lead, as it has in the past, to war and violence.

Only international working class solidarity and the elimination of production for profit can show a way out. That means collective rather than private ownership of the productive forces on a national and global scale.

Only a global plan of production and control and management of global resources can solve this problem. I can't see any other way.

No comments: