[ The following was a response to a post by Jack of the North, too lengthy for a blogspot reply, so posted here. ]
Various contributing elements ‘give meaning to Wales’, not all of them culturalist / identitarian / linguistic, as you know. One strong such signifier of Welsh distinctiveness is the sense that we are indeed innovators willing to challenge the values of the status quo and to struggle to make social and economic change. Welshness and such innovativeness are not mutually exclusive. To the contrary, I would suggest that the intensity of our experience of Welshness would deepen considerably the further we innovate away from the (neo-liberal capitalist) norm of the London System.
So much of the upheaval that has negatively impacted modern Wales has been as the result of our being on the receiving end of London’s capitalist modus operandi, with no State of our own to intervene to prevent domination and exploitation by alien interests. To combat these forces, it seems to me that we MUST take a stance that is critical of neo-liberalism/capitalism; in other words, to be Left wing (assuming those interested in a Free Wales want true, as opposed to merely symbolic, freedom!)
To neglect this (unfashionably leftist) approach just doesn’t bare thinking about; and to talk of embracing the economic status quo, or of becoming Rightist in order to avoid ‘dangerous experiments’, avoids the crucial showdown with that real opponent of Welsh freedom - i.e. not ‘England & Englishness’ alone, nor one ancient tribal nation versus its rival neighbour, but the force which counters the freedom of both the people of Wales AND of England.
Which is to say, the setting-up of a proudly distinctive Welsh variant of capitalism would not in the least constitute true freedom for Wales.
Why do I raise the issue of ‘Republican Vs Liberal’? Well, from what I gather from your writings herein, you object to the intrusion into Welsh politics and society of a London-centric “leftism” that is ill-suited to contemporary welsh needs. If that is the case, then I agree with you! However, for us to subsequently then paint ourselves into a corner marked ‘Right-wing’ would involve our succumbing to London-centric discourse and language, to play into the hands of the opponents of Welsh freedom.
We should be able to reject the direction that the left has been forced to take in London (read: Britain) without being right-wing. Indeed, that is the stance I take. Wales must develop its own native political lexicon, use a set of concepts that may well be completely foreign to those deemed acceptable by the moribund London ‘Left’. Having said that, Jac, I can understand how tempting its is to transgress their pseudo moral orthodoxies by ramming a naughty ‘right wing’ in their face…
I think we agree that what might be deemed trendy and PC in London is visibly being deployed here in Wales to emotionally blackmail Welsh people into accepting dogma, at the expense of the notion of a Welsh republic determined to pursue its own distinct interests. I highlighted your usage of the term ‘right wing’ because language has a fluid ambiguity, which - if not paid sufficient care - could very easily gift a political opportunity to the enemies of Welsh freedom.
I haven’t sufficiently addressed the ‘republican v liberal’ argument that I wanted to make. Briefly, tho, I believe that what you object to in such areas as eco-politics and immigration is the incursion into the London-Left mainstream of what we might term a shallow/opportunist LIBERALISM which has gained the upper hand at the expense (ironically) of the Left proper / Socialism. I am cheekily suggesting that what is objectionable here is not the prospect of socialism in Wales, so much as the politically correct liberal-left consensus [dominated by the capitalist “workers party” : Labour], which disallows genuine debate on immigration and its impact upon the Wales of today / tomorrow.
As you must know, historically Republicanism gave birth to the rival siblings of Liberalism (committed to the freedom of the individual, his expression) and to Socialism (with its commitment to combating domination under economic un-freedom / exploitation). Suffice to say, nowadays one of these philosophies is deemed more amenable to the powers-that-be than its rival. The political Left across Britain has been successfully cultivated into something ineffectual and liberal, albeit a very effective enemy of Socialism, leaving economic neo-liberalism a free hand. In place of a true critique of capitalism we have Identity Politics, culturalism, environmentalism, and - as the result of there being no real Welsh media and insufficient space within which to germinate a distinctive Welsh discourse - PLAID CYMRU has been forced to adopt these mores.
Republicanism’s deeper and more pro-active concept of freedom is at hand for those still intent on promoting a (truly) Free Wales, and to ‘give meaning’ across a wide array of areas of concern, yes INCLUDING those tainted by their proximity to the London liberal-left.
In the 1800s, Irish nationalism developed an anti-socialism alongside its anti-English stance, and rather than promote workers’ rights, pursued Irish identity via such organizations as Conradh na Gaelige and the Gaelic Athletic Association: all very amenable to a rising Catholic middle class. And, as we have seen from recent developments, Ireland is a ‘republic’ in name only. The lesson we must learn from recent Irish history is that any republican government, setting out to intervene between its citizenry and the forces who would seek to dominate them, would of necessity take a stance that is deeply critical of capitalism / neo-liberalism.
I'm not sure of the degree to which the current global economic situation has negatively impacted the world of Gaelic Sports etc; possibly not very much, which would be great news. But then, Irish nationalism’s fervent promotion, through the decades, of what ‘gives Ireland meaning’ culturally speaking, was very consciously at the expense of Socialism. Certainly this has been true of the current crop of representatives in the Dail, and Ireland has suffered many of the same issues that exercise you on this blog!
My Right / Left framework may be misleading, but when you're trying to explain yourself on a blog such shorthand is inevitable.
ReplyDeleteLooking at our history from the Industrial Revolution (which for many on the left is the totality of Welsh history), where socialists see 'downtrodden workers' in a geographical area called Wales, whose people are little different to workers in Yorkshire or other parts of England, I see downtrodden Welsh workers.
This is not to say that such workers would not have been exploited by a Welsh system but I believe an indigenous capitalism, a Welsh political system, a Welsh legal system, a Welsh media and all the other trappings of a Welsh state would have been closer to those Welsh workers, and therefore less oppressive.
Socialists, the Labour Party especially, like to take credit for introducing Wales to ideas of 'fairness', which is utter bollocks. This sense of what is right and what is wrong predates both the Industrial Revolution and socialism. Ceffyl Pren, Scotch Cattle, Rebecca, etc, owe everything to pre-existing Welsh traditions of fair play.
The influence of these traditions would not have been confined to the working class if Wales had been an independent country at the onset of industrialism. As it was, we had a Welsh working class in conflict with - David Davies, the Dillwyn Llewellyns et al aside - an English capitalist system speaking a different language, having different values and, too often, informed by ideas of racial and cultural superiority.
Because our introduction to capitalism and associated ideas was so painful, and came from an alien source, most Welsh simply rejected the whole package out of hand. This was strengthened once the English Labour Party took its grip on Wales; with history being rewritten and the Welsh dimension expunged in favour of some imagined proto-socialism.
This persists today. The only difference I see between Plaid Cymru and the Labour Party is that the former will stress the Welsh dimension a little more.
Yet on practical, everyday issues, I (and others on the 'Right') care more about the poor of Wales than they do! Both Plaid and Labour want to continue paying billions in subsidies to foreign energy companies to erect wind turbines that force the poorest among us into fuel poverty. That's socialism!
But at the end of the day, you are correct. Right and Left are too simplistic as labels; they do not adequately convey the differences I'm trying to promote. I shall give the matter some thought.
This is a fascinating debate and usually you don't get to see Jac explain himself so fully. His remarks about the left tend to be throwaway or situated within a very specific context. Without sounding like i'm copping out or taking the middle ground, I can see both of the points of view here.
ReplyDeleteRaymond Williams once spoke of the 'twin truths'. To simplify him, he argued that the linguistic and indigenous cultural history of Wales was not an alternative to the socialist, industrial, labour history of Wales, but that the reality of Wales (and the basis for a meaningful Welsh future) was actually found in how the two came together. I find this to be an appealing and effective message.
It is interesting to mention Ireland and wonder whether the tide really turned against foreign rule when the labour movement in that country was largely mobilised by nationalists and republicans such as the communist James Connolly. When the struggle became a workers' uprising that dealt a serious blow to British hegemony. But obviously no historian would ever downplay the on-off, complicated influence of the Catholic church, Irish conservatism and cultural politics, and the fact that bourgeois-patriotic elements from Irish petty-capitalism also saw that some of their interests could be met by having some kind of incomplete Irish state.
Even today the emphasis to reunify Ireland is coming from a left-wing party Sinn Fein. The rightist and centrist parties are not particularly interested in unity, republicanism or nationalism.
Sorry, I meant James Larkin not Connolly- particularly Larkin's role in the ITGWU programme which promised "the land of Ireland for the people of Ireland" as well as the usual leftist/workers demands.
ReplyDeleteAn interesting, if inevitably leftist, interpretation of Irish history. Which probably explains why no mention was made of land until the correction. For property ownership is so petty bourgeois . . . and yet, few issues drove and sustained Irish nationalism more than the struggle for security of tenure on, or ownership of, the land tenant farmers worked. Larkin understood.
ReplyDelete