This is a long and sprawly post. This is also a philosophy thread. Come at me. (Seriously. I bang on about a bunch of stuff, and at least some of it must require challenge or clarification!) Let’s go!
Changed my mind again. Cos, as if by cosmic magic, the latest Trashfuture podcast gets stuck into it.
(NB: This is a sober one-person delivery looking at Benedict Anderson’s Imagined Communities book, rather than the ‘UK Chapo’ style raucous chat.)
The “nation” is a concept much beloved of reactionaries and dismissed by Marxists as mere ideology. But it has serious psychological power nevertheless. Anderson’s book asks what is a “nation,” where did it come from, and how has the concept been used and misused over time? Riley then applies Anderson’s rubric to understanding the increasingly psychotic trajectory of the Conservative movement in the developed world.
For the most part, it’s good. Lots of interesting theory. I guess my main gripe is that, toward the end, when he focuses on the UK, he very much concentrates on the Brexit-centric fear of the imagined masses coming for their jobs and their homes. Fine. All that accords with the themes identified. But if you talk about nationalism in the UK, and you don’t touch on Scottish independence, it’s a debate that’s lacking. Which is frustrating.
The podcast identifies that it’s possible for a non-class based, liberal, refutation of racism to exist, which could potentially exist within the setup of a nation. That there’s room for international solidarity, understanding and altruism, etc, that doesn’t have to be explicitly Marxist. Then claims it never happens with any degree of depth as part of ‘national stories’ when compared to Marxist Theory. Macron is given as an example of a classic contemporary failing on this front. Of a superficial multicultural talk not backed up by reality.
Okaaay. But I say hmmm. I (inevitably) look at Scotland. I see A Man’s a Man for A’ That (“famous for its expression of egalitarian ideas of society”).
I see We’re a’ Jock Tamson’s Bairns (“equivalent to we’re all the same under the skin”.
[Incidentally, the link to Hansard with Winnie Ewing’s use of it in a parliamentary speech is worth a read, with it’s inevitable interjection - on this occasion from anti-devolution Labour MP Brian Wilson - suggesting that a concern about Scottish issues inherently means a lack of concern about English issues. Other good stuff, too, about Eurosceptic ignorance etc, in that speech: check it out.). And whaddya know? The good conscientious internationalist Mr Wilson got a sacking in 2015 for doing a cry about the influence of Islam on Europe and the Islamic dominance of Britain. I’d never heard of this guy until an hour ago, but you only have to scratch the surface to uncover the layers of hypocrisy.]
Anyway, these examples of ‘national psyche’ stories are centuries old and ingrained. I see it in evidence in the way people talk here (i.e. Glasgow) in comparison to, say, Lincolnshire, where I grew up. And more generally in (#notall, but much of) England I see Jerusalem’s green and pleasant land. I see An Englishman’s home is his castle. I see the EU referendum result.
The obvious danger here is that we stray into exceptionalism. Gotta keep ourselves in check. And, with that in mind, on a slightly more light-hearted note, let’s move on.
I was looking through this old hand-me-down football card/stamp book the other night.
And I see:
Nice English flag! 
And this passage: “Rumania (sic) is another country that owes it’s start in football to England. British Engineers in the Rumanian oilfields …” English and British being used synonymously, etc. And I never know “Rumania” had oil fields that ‘we’ were involved with in the early 20th century. From the El Salvador bit: “…in the First World War we had English troops kicking a ball in the trenches”. USSR (which = “Russia”): “Yet another country where soccer was started by Englishmen.” (Spoiler: it wasn’t.) If nothing else, historical accuracy aside, seeing these sorts of thing in a modern Panini book! 
I realise this footy aside is a bit jokey and small potatoes. But it’s an insight into how ingrained and low-level the non-parity of England and Scotland goes in terms of it’s place within the UK. A billion words have been written about that. I’ll not add to them right now.
But back to class. As @Attheborderguy said:
And there’s a bit more to be said about that, but I’ll leave it hanging for now.
Back to the TF podcast. He finishes by acknowledging a coyote of key things. Firstly, the power of capital. And how even well-intentioned national socialist efforts to come together for the greater good are at risk of being undermined by organisations, companies and persons that operate on an international level. And international just about always wins out over national. Secondly, the difficulty of even bringing about Socialism within a country in the first place, especially within a single governmental term, such that it (or the beginnings of it) can’t simply be rolled back with zero effort by a subsequent government with different priorities.
On that last point, I thought the latest Breunig podcast was good. (Another one-guy presentation rather than the usual other episodes with both him and his partner chatting. If Trashfuture is a UK Chapo, The Breunigs is a kinda US version of We Don’t Talk About The Weather.)
It looks at the
philosophical tension that runs through much socialist thinking and posting: how can socialism be both individually liberating while also relying on collective control and ownership?
This winding (don’t call it rambling) episode covers many topics including Distributism, Jeffersonians, Rawls’s property-owning democracy, and various socialist tendencies. And most importantly, it offers a real solution to the conundrum.
The answer, in short, seems to be to worry less about what Socialism is (because of the aforementioned problems with realistically implementing it) and to focus more about how to practically work towards collective ownership. Spoiler: we should create a (Norway-esque) gov controlled ‘social wealth fund’. And also work less. And have a much improved welfare setup that would effectively pay for itself.
That’s pretty much my mind-dump for now. In the words of @ghosthalo - have a nibble!
If nothing else, here’s a question. Do you consider ‘social ownership of capital’ to be legit? Or is it too Social Democrat and not Democratic Socialist enough for your liking - more Warren than Sanders?
