💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › until-the-death-of-nation-msvdn.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 14:28:44. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: Until The Death Of Nation Date: 31/07/2022 Language: en Topics: Nation state, independence, autonomy, self-determination, direct democracy, libertarian municipalism Source: Emsavadenn
Introduction
a) Nation
The nation. A vague and worldwide concept, used in very different
contexts by various individuals, from the far-left to the far-right
activists. For some of us, it simply doesn't matter ; for others, it is
a vital element represensenting a salvation from threats of many kinds.
Yet, it is quite difficult to define and this very definition is likely
to change given from where you stand on the planet and in the political
spectrum.
It actually is in the end of the XVIIIth century/beginning of the XIXth
century that the concept of nation truly appears and thrives in Europe.
Monarchies (absolute ones in the beginning) lose their stability,
disturbed by the reformist and/or republican movements. The best known
example of this being France, of course.
The French Enlightenment then comes up with a conceptualisation of the
nation which is unique and thoroughly distinct from the Germanic one (we
will come back to the Germanic vision later on). All around the world,
the word “nation” nowadays basically means “a gathering of people who
see themselves as part of a sole entity with a common culture, history,
language and, sometimes, common ideals and values”. However, the French
nation is way more than a ethnico-cultural idea. It truly reaches a more
philosophical and almost spiritual outlook (before going further, it is
also crucial to explain that this outlook is one built almost entirely
by the French gentry/bourgeoisie of the time). Indeed, being French then
doesn't mean having French parents, loving French gastronomy, adoring
French history, speaking French, inhabiting the French territory, being
a believer, etc. (or, at least, this doesn't suffice). It means agreeing
with the outcomes of the Revolution, namely the country's motto
(Freedom, Equality, Brotherhood), the Declaration of the Rights of Man
and of the Citizen, the Constitution, etc. Thus, there is no real “being
French” but only a “thinking French”. If we extrapolate, a Chinese can
technically be French, as well as a Nigerian, a Colombian, or whoever
else. Of course, it doesn't imply a complete cancellation of what is
previous to the French Revolution. It adds another aspect to the French
history, it marks a new start, a new way of conceiving the French
nationality in another way than just being a member of the Third-Estate
serving the king and the clergy.
Therefore, you may still be left disappointed for it is a conception
that is rather similar to what the first line of this book says, “a
vague […] concept”. And you are right (we will go into detail later).
Nonetheless, we as well have to evoke the Germanic nation and the
foremost figure of it, that is to say Flichte (a German philosopher).
The nation, as seen by Flichte, is neither philosophical nor spiritual.
It is fundamentaly ethnical and is a matter of culture (notably of
language). Whoever shares a common history, blood or language with
Germany is German(ic). Hence, Austrians are somehow Germans. This German
concept is intimately linked to racism in a certain way... and is being
brought up to date by the current far-right movements and parties in
Europe...
b) Self-determination
“Action of a people of deciding of its own political and economical
status”. This is what self-determination is. Today, self-determination
bears an end in itself: the creation of a nation state. It is now
admitted that every people has a legitimate right to decide by and for
itself (at least in the “Western democracies”) through miscellanious
organisations: republics, unicameral legislatures, bicameral
legislatures, constitutional monarchies (referendums and direct
democracy too but still regrettably very rare...), etc.
The problem lies in this sentence “an end in itself: the creation of a
nation state”. No one argued that there actually might be something
after that. Something that's more audacious, that's better for us. The
choice has been perverted until now: do you want a nation state with a
“democracy” (the quotation marks matter)? Or do you want to go back to
(absolute) monarchies? Well, what about the remainder, eh? Let's see...
Chapter I: The beginning of the smokescreen
After WWII, the wolrd's geopolitical context altered a lot. Germany had
to start again from scratch and the two biggest colonial empires (the UK
and France) waned because of the damage done by the conflict and the
waxing decolonisation on the way. Moreover, the USA and the USSR imposed
themselves as the main superpowers on the international scene. So, there
was a need for supranational and international bodies to be created in
order to prevent the West from any other disaster of that kind and
stature (WWII, Shoah, gulags, etc.). A need that would not have been
felt if the same thing would have taken place in the Southern
countries... (that's another debate).
Thus emerged the UN. In 1945, 51 states joined the organization by
ratifying its charter. What matters for us in this book is what is
expounded in the first article of the latter in which is written this
sentence “[The Purposes of the United Nations are] to develop friendly
relations among nations based on the respect of equal rights
and self-determination of peoples”. By stating this right to
self-determination, the members of the UN implicitely acknowledge the
necessity for a people to possess a state of its own that would mainly
be based on a recognition of a people, of a nation. If not the case,
let's say if people with a common ideology would be wanting to create a
country for them only, they would not be accepted by the UN. Why? Well,
because what's predominant in this “self-determination” is probably
closer to the Germanic conception of nation than to the French one
(presumably seen as too indefinite on a law field). Again, this concept
of nation, is here being put on the same level as the concept of state.
They become unseparable. To be a state, you beforehand have to be a
nation (a population linked by blood, culture, language, that has been
inhabiting the same territory for ages, etc.) and somewhat have a
historic evidence for being so.
Some may not see that as an issue, which is utterly normal given that we
live in a world where what we just said is generally accepted and/or
internalised. And, from a kind of internationalism, it may not be a
problem. But it should. A nation state, for internationalists, is not an
ok thing. It is, at least a step in a broader process, at most an error.
Nevertheless, under the current circumstancies, and strategically-wise,
let's make it a step.
Yet, another part of the post-WWII era is to be studied to understand
the integration of nation states on Earth... The decolonisation.
Decolonisation and rise of the nation states in the second half of the
XXth century
As previously said, both colonial empires, British and French ones,
start to decline after WWII. The independentist movements and parties
take a bigger part within the policies of the colonised countries. The
subjugated populations are fed up with being enslaved and treated as
second-class citizens and end up agreeing with a nationalist ideology
claiming that they should become independent. That's when the right to
self-determination occurs and intervenes. Numerous states agree with
this principle and countries such as India (which obtained its
independence in 1947) could demand this right to be honoured by a member
of the UN such as Great Britain. Besides, the USSR and the USA
“supported” decolonisation, hence a hardship to say no to it from the
colonial empires.
The need to become an independent nation is totally understandable. But,
didn't we miss an opportunity? Far be it from me the idea of telling
colonised/formerly colonised populations what to do or not to do/they
should have or not done. But, the absence of alternatives to nation
state in such a context of massive and potiential change and renewal is
perplexing. Although it is, again, easily fathomable after being
controlled by imperialism and colonialism, after being told to
assimilate and erase its culture, etc.
There could have been something else (cf. Chapter II). And, perhaps, the
blame can be shifted (more or less... and not only, cf. Chapter II also)
to the lack of true internationalism in marxist milieus of the time.
Let's explain. In many countries seeking independence in the 50s, 60s,
70s, marxist and socialist organisations were present. Decolonisation
was considered as sort of linked with marxism for it contained in each
case a matter of liberation and emancipation from imperialism, from
capitalism, from bourgeois states, etc. Furthermore, as you may know it,
from a marxist (more of a communist one to be precise) point of view,
the existence of a state, of a government, is needed and wanted, at
least for the second milestone of communism, that is the dictatorship of
the proletariat (the first step being revolution ; the last one being
socialism and the abolition of class society). That's the arguable point
for us, anarchists. The inauguration of a bourgeois and centralised
state is the biggest mistake that can be made. And the aftermaths of the
rise of nation states in Africa during the decolonisation has proven
that it indeed is.
The trap we all fell into
It was a trap. One set by the Western thought, both capitalist and
marxist. The West simply did not leave any other option than nation
state to the whole world, and especially to the members of the Third
World. Don't blame the latter. How to survive and grow if you don't take
part in the world economic market? How to thrive if you aren't
represented within the institutions that rule the world? You've suffered
for centuries, under the yoke of destructive and annihilating powers,
and now that you are independent, not partaking in the status quo they
set may be equal to giving yourself up to new sanctions and dangers...
Chapter II: Nation states and reproductions of the oppressors'
schemes/patterns
How and why did the West impose nation state – Hypotheses
Colonialism was a thing. It is an era whose reality is acknowledged by
everybody.
Neocolonialism is a thing. It is an element whose reality is
acknowledged by, basically, no one. It may be the key to comprehend why
the West wanted nation states so bad in Africa for example. Imperialism
and capitalism know no limits. Colonisation doesn't exist anymore? Well,
let's create a new kind of it. Why would we let those uncivilised and
barbaric populations be in full possession of their rights and
resources? I mean, that would be too kind, too easy... Hence
neocolonialism. And, how to be able to control a region? By establishing
nation states and centralised governments that we could blackmail,
corrupt, manipulate, that we could impose an unfair power ratio to.
Now, the call to conspiracy theory might loom. Some may object “you're
using the word “establish”, meaning that you think that foreign powers
were present in colonised countries and deliberately built nation
states”. Well, no. To clarify, let's go back to “3) The trap we all fell
into”. This establishing was no direct one ; it was indirect. The
growing capitalism obligated everyone to enter its den. There was no
point for recently decolonised countries to put a spoke in their own
wheels by attempting to found an international counterpower and a
parallel world order. It would come back to staying forever in this
position of servility. And, when some tried to do so, it didn't last
that long or wasn't efficient enough (i.e. the Third World).
Yet, we also have to think nation state as not only a means of
dominating the other nation states, the other religions, the other skin
colors but one of trodding upon anyone who dares contesting the nation.
Crushing our own alternatives as well as our own folk
If all the power is in the hands of a sole caste, taking decisions in
the name of the people, but, really, in their own interest, drawing the
lines of what should be and not be done economically and legally
speaking, what happens? This dominant group uses all the tools they
possess to destroy whatever threatens it, even the slightest and tiniest
contestation. A run of the mill assessment, you may think (indeed, it
is). This is observable everywhere and by every time. In general, the
ones who own the economical field are the ones who also own, directly or
not, the political institutions. That's how almost every so-called
democracy of our planet actually is a blending of oligarchy, nepotism
and plutocracy. It always is the boourgeoisie who rules the states and
do whatever it takes to keep their integrity and capital unspoiled.
The bourgeoisie and its relation to nation, let's talk about it. The
bourgeoisie never cared and never cares about nation. To be true,
everytime a billionaire/a millionaire/a shareholder shows interest for
nationalist causes, it is bullshit. The bourgeoisie, since it doesn't
work and spends its time enjoying its wealth, has to create, from
absolutely nothing, political debates and concepts no one else gives a
shit about. That's how, in France for example, billionaires and
millionaires began talking about the “great replacement”, the
“civilisational fight” and so on. The nationalist bourgesoisie doesn't
even exist on a historical level (the French bourgeoisie massively
collaborated with the Nazis during the Occupation so that it wouldn't
lose its business and money for instance). The only reason why they
sometimes seem to like nationalism is weariness, boredom. That's all.
And globalisation is a tangible proof.
Except that there are a few things they do care about with nation state
(not really the nation alone then) such as coercition to begin with. The
police is in their pay and is a crucial force to exterminate every
nascent social movement. For the police is not at the population's
service but at the capital and state's. Moreover, nationalism is also
often used by the bourgeoisie as a way of making contact with coppers
and enticing them to cooperate. Again, that's something that's been
happening in France for many years now and it goes on. “Don't hesitate
to overreact during protests and to overuse force when proceeding to an
arrest to ensure that they keep them mouths shut and to stiffle their
claims. In return, free train tickets, better wages and no sacking when
perpetrating blunders.”
Second factor: puppet polticians. Nepotism (tendency to give privileges
to members of a same class, a same religion, a same entourage as the one
we belong to) has been evoked sooner in this essay, there's a reason for
it. When you take a look closer to who funds the bourgeois parties, to
who has dinner with the government's figures, you can clearly catch
sight of a permanent feature, namely the fact that they almost always
are CEOs or shareholders or whatever. Oppositely to what some may think,
it is not anecdotal. When your bank grants you a loan, you owe him money
and gratitude. So, do you think that it is different for politicians?
Obviously not.
What's being attempted to be shown here is that parties and statesmen
adapt their programs, measures, laws to who they owe both money and
respect for how they helped them reach the positions they're now
holding. Thereby, nation state is once again a way of preserving the
bourgeoisie's hegemony.
To sum up, by giving legitimacy to and by supporting nation state, we
are also lending a helping hand to the upper class. We are making their
job way easier. Not are we only discriminating against proletarians,
refugees, workers, LGBTQ+ communities, but the hopes of another outcome
to this world as well. Neoliberalism can then proliferate and go on
privatising everything, uberising the economy, killing by maintaining
high unemployment rates and nefarious working conditions...
Then, why not building something else than what destroys us?
To illustrate what is meant by “building something else than what
destroys us”, an odd comparison is going to be made. On the one hand,
Zionism and Israel are going to give us the “bad” (a too simplistic
adjective of course) example ; on the other hand Rojava and Kurds are
going to set a goal, are going to be an inspiration.
Jews have been (still are) persecuted and hunted all through their
History, particularly in Europe, whether by nation states, theocracies,
religious states and kingdoms. And so, without any palatable reason,
unfairly, unpardonably. Chased and despised, for notably perceived as
traitors and killers of prophetes by Christian communities, they often
had to leave their living places and to wander, searching for jobs and
shelters. Obviously, this clampdown's acme took place under the rule of
the Nazis and during the Holocaust.
Once freed from concentration camps, a part of the Jews agree with a
political current known as Zionism, firstly theorised by Theodor Herzl,
a Jewish Austro-Hungarian journalist, in his book “Der Judenstaat”
(literally “The State of Jews”, translated as “The Jewish State”), in
1896. The gist of it is the following: Jews altogether form a unique
nation ; Jews can't fit in any society ; Jews need a state of their own.
You may now foresee what happened next... Israel's creation in 1948.
Now, what's wrong with it? A people fleeing massacres and discrimination
in order to be safe and sound, together, at last deciding of their fate,
what's the problem here? Well, “reproductions of the oppressors'
schemes”. I mean, you've known so many tragedies and have been
ostracised for ages by nation states and religious ones and the first
thing you do when eventually liberated from these is doing the same in
Palestine by founding a nationalist and religious state. And we nowadays
know what it entails... (this Zionism also was enhanced by the White
European intellectual sphere who claimed it to be a freeing endeavour.
Yet, it may actually have been thought, deep inside, as a way of getting
rid of the Jews in Europe... Which is, by the way, a quite awful
anti-semistic and colonial concept (for more on the matter, please dig
in the decolonial theories often evoked by H. Bouteldja or Y.
Boussoumah).
As for the Kurds, it was more or less the same, but it happened in the
Middle-East and without any religious persecutions nor any genocides
(except for the Yezidis). In fact, they still are frowned upon,
especially in Turkyie where speaking and/or singing in their language
can be forbidden for example. And, for a long time, the answer coming
from the Kurds to these problems was to build a nation state for Kurds
to be/feel safe. This idea lingers on in Kurdish Iraq for instance.
However, the Kurdish Turk and Kurdish Syrian political forces decided to
take the high road. Because, why would they copy what is problematic in
their daily lives? So, when the Syrian Civil War broke out in the 2010s,
Rojava arose. A multi-ethnic, multi-cultural, multi-faith autonomous
(and not independent! (cf. Autonomy over Independence)) region organised
in a democratic confederalism manner. That's how you go beyond nation
state and truly get to the grips with the issues you're facing!
Chapter III: Thinking beyond nation and achieving the real
self-determination (the first step to an internationalist process, a
philosophical change)
The point of this new chapter will be to show how we could all move
forward and find a new way of organising our societies. The path has
been partially cleared already by what we evoked earlier, namely Rojava.
This model obviously isn't a perfect one but it could mark the start to
a major movement and current that's actually already on the way. The
goal then is to give some ideas, some lines of enquiry linked with
what's been done before around the world and throughout History, from
Ukraine to Chiapas, from Korea to Paris.
We've established that nation state definitely is a tool of domination,
of war, of destruction. We've seen how it also unfortunately is/was used
by marxist thinkers and activists. We've basically enumerated facts
which partake in the fact that it is “wrong”. Now, what would be the
advantages of taking nation down? How to take it down? What is going to
follow its abolition?
We're going to go through theoretical stuff but not only. The goal will
be to keep reality close as well as to find concrete examples to
illustrate our thoughts.
“Taking nation down” is far from being an easy task and many encounters
and impediments will rise to defend the nation against the cruelty of
the maneuver. Hence, we are going to do a kind of thought experiment,
and everything said will be theoretical and hypothetical.
Firstly, the will to destroy nation has to be well fixed in the society
in question. How to do that? By fighting nationalism, by stymieing
anti-autonomous and anti-democratic endeavours, by exposing the cons of
centralism, by debunking (some parts of?) the national narrative, etc.
It will demand a certain amount of boldness and relentlessness and,
especially, a lot of time.
Then, the goal will be to reach a parcelling up of the state, on the
basis of libertarian municipalism. That way, the nation per se as well
as the sense of belonging that's present in this very state might be
damaged. Yes, it can be seen as a danger, as divisive, as a project
wanting to undermine togetherness. But, truly, it is not. Because, it
would also (partly) cancel the noxious competition between nations, it
would create another sense of belonging, way more human and way more
tangible (with your neighbours, your colleagues...)(besides, wouldn't it
be a means of rekindling, of revitalising and highlighting the
multiplicity of our cultures? Wouldn't it make people feel that it is
possible to create artworks, collectively, given that the scale enables
it?). A better understanding of each other could spring thanks to a path
that's heading towards a local scale. You wouldn't have to talk about
things that you don't really care about for you'd have to focus on your
almost personal political issues. All of that without falling into the
trap of the “bell tower effect” (we'll see why it actually shouldn't
happen in the following pargraphs). Open-mindedness could be fostered in
view of the fact that we would look after a social and political reality
that's about us really, about where we live, about where we work. And
prejudices would be deconstructed more easily by example and by proof
when confronting yourself to the others, when meeting strangers and
getting acquainted. We would have a sort of mandatory duty to build our
lives with the ones who are part of our daily life, who are next to us
geographically speaking. So, reevaluating our common preconceptions
would simply be vital. Besides, we know that racism and xenophobia are
often due to ignorance, to a lack of mingling with the alterity. Thanks
to this confrontation with reality, we could hope for a “twist in minds”
to occur.. There's a turning point to trigger, a cusp to unveil.
The gist of the previous paragraph is, to put it in a nutshell, the
following: thanks to municipalism and to the destruction of nation
(state), we will force ourselves to comprehend the others' experiences
and material conditions of life ; it will make us change and give
nationalism/sectarianism up because reality is going to prevent us from
thinking through this prism of analysis.
Nevertheless, some might object that it would only be a way to create
another form of nationalism, a small-scale one. But, we somewhat proved
that it wouldn't be so. However, it is true that such a project demands,
in fact, a very high level in regard to philosophy. By choosing this
context of living, we are telling ourselves to abandon the “bell tower
effect” (a phenomenon which encourages mutual aid but only between the
members of a similar class, ethnic group, else) that society is pervaded
with. We are telling ourselves to call every little certainty and
prejudice we bear into question, to demolish borders, both literally and
figuratively. Yes, we will have to mind our own business because we'll
be deciding of what's going on in our neighbourhood, in our town, but it
doesn't mean that solidarity cannot be built with other neighbourhoods
and towns and regions. That's why it is truly demanding, there sometimes
is a thin line between brotherhood/sisterhood and the “bell tower
effect”.
Let's open (and finish on) a quick parenthisis about libertarian
municipalism/communalism. It is also important to say that it only is
one option. It shouldn't, in any case, be imposed to any population and
it must not erase and/or eclipse any other alternatives such as squats,
self-organised villages/buildings/neighbourhoods, etc.
A new self-determination
Now, self-determination recovers a brand new aspect. It doesn't mean the
right for a people to own its nation state anymore ; it means being able
to decide for yourself, wherever you stand on the planet, whoever you
are. It means not being forced to say that you are English, French,
Brazilian, Vietnamese, or whatever. It means not having to justify
yourself all the time because you simply don't want to admit that your
country is the best, is perfect, is respectable in such or such field.
It means not caring about your nationality for, all in all, nation is
nothing but a vague concept and often only is materialised by an ID
card. The right to self-determination is the right to real and direct
democracy. It is the right for the people (understand for the
proletariat) to be its fate's unique master, collectively.