The
problem of idée fixe in the politics
of the Left
LATE
last year, Paul Salveson, a Labour councillor for Golcar, a
constituency near Huddersfield in West Yorkshire, submitted an article for a
forthcoming printed issue of Northern Voices in which he argued
that whatever the result of the Scottish referendum this September, that
there would be far reaching constitutional consequences and that things would never be the
same after that. Yesterday, a leader
writer in an editorial in the Yorkshire Post echoed these
sentiments:
'Whether or not Scotland opts for independence on Thursday, the one
certainty is that the governance of Britain will be changed forever by the
result.'
The issue, as Mr. Salveson foresaw it, is that while a Yes
vote may cause confusion, constitutional disarray and the break up the United
Kingdom; a success for the No lobby will still bring in a range of devolved
powers (labelled Devo-Max) and possible demands for further referendums.
In last
Saturday's FT the economist, Martin Wolf, described the prospects in the following terms:
'If
the vote is a Yes, it will be forever.
But what about a narrow No (vote)?
That too would be a nightmare. We
could then look forward to more referendums.'
Even as I write this I understand that the West
Yorkshire Combined Authority, and the Leeds City Region Local Enterprise
Partnership (LEP), are proposing to develop proposals to put to the Chancellor
George Osborne before his Autumn Statement in December, in which he has already
promised to have thew northern economy at its heart, and Deputy Prime Minister
Nick Clegg launched his
'Northern Futures' project in Leeds in July, calling for ideas on
creating an 'economic hub' in the
North.
The editor of the Yorkshire Post goes much further in
the leader yesterday:
'The new mood for a move to a more federal Britain certainly shames the
pitiful power-sharing efforts made so far by Westminster... This must now change. With a population and an economy of similar
size to those of Scotland, there is no logical reason why Yorkshire should be
denied far greater powers of its own.'
The problem in Britain is that it is a nation state
whose power has been for so long centred upon London, and that its people don't
have a great understanding of federalism.
Its English culture, even on the Left among the radicals and so-called
revolutionaries, is one of 'Utilitarian liberalism' in which
seemingly everyone wants to protect his or her pension, career, dole, or other
perks and benefits provided by the centralised state. Thus, the British Left is instinctively
centralist, including paradoxically many who describe themselves as
anarchists.
In Europe, especially in France and Spain the reaction to the reality of the centralism imposed by both the French Revolution with its destruction of local interests and privileges, and the Spanish Liberal Revolution, was inspired by the anarchist Proudhon. In France, Proudhon believed that the French Revolution had come into existence to fulfil the notion of greater local and municipal liberty, but had been diverted in this task by the ruthless political actions of the Jacobins. In Spain, federalism was rescued by a Catalan, Pi y Margall, who had read Proudhon, and saw how the Frenchman's ideas would suit the regional aspirations of the Spanish people.
In Europe, especially in France and Spain the reaction to the reality of the centralism imposed by both the French Revolution with its destruction of local interests and privileges, and the Spanish Liberal Revolution, was inspired by the anarchist Proudhon. In France, Proudhon believed that the French Revolution had come into existence to fulfil the notion of greater local and municipal liberty, but had been diverted in this task by the ruthless political actions of the Jacobins. In Spain, federalism was rescued by a Catalan, Pi y Margall, who had read Proudhon, and saw how the Frenchman's ideas would suit the regional aspirations of the Spanish people.
Pi y Margall wrote:
'Every man who has power over another
is a tyrant.' And the Englishman,
Gerald Brenan, writing about Py y Margall says:
'Discussing
the meaning of “order” – that word which for more than a hundred years had
been the excuse for every act of violence and injustice – he (Margall) says that true order
cannot be obtained by applying force.'
Given that Pi y Margall's federalism in Spain evolved
and developed into a form of Spanish anarchism, it is surprising in England
that the current tiny tribe of anarchists have not had much to say about the issue
of Scottish independence and regional devolution. It is something that I would have thought
their more distinguished predecessors at Freedom Press such as Colin Ward and
Nicholas Walter, would have had much to say.
Instead today, it is left to the main stream parties and the likes of
Paul Salveson (who someone from the anarchist
federation, recently described as a 'Labour
Party hack') to wrestle with the issues of federalism and Scottish
independence. The problem with much of the
English left, including the anarchist faction, is that it suffers from a form
of idée fixe* that serves to cut it off
from real life situations.
* idée fixe, ( French: “fixed idea”) in music and literature, a recurring theme or character trait that serves as the structural foundation of a work. The term was later used in psychology to refer to an irrational obsession that so dominates an individual’s thoughts as to determine his or her actions.
No comments:
Post a Comment