Dan Ladds

“The Xenophobe constantly raves about the u201clazy immigrantu201d on one hand and yet, on the other, complains about people u201ccoming over here and taking our jobsu201dnnFundamentally, the idea is almost a paradox.”nnThe two assertions do look like a contradiction at first glance, but they are not. The Xenophobe believes that “the foreigner” is either out to steal jobs by offering labour at a rate which undercuts the local workforce or, failing that, reject work outright and instead help himself to the benefits and social services paid for by the local workforce.u00a0nnEither way the local workforce is disadvantaged by the presence of “the foreigner”.nnThat this view is diametrically at odds with the economic reality on the ground – that social infrastructure, further job creation etc. is considerably enhanced by the importing of cheap migrant labourers (Mexicans in the USA, Poles in the UK etc.) makes not an iota of difference to the pervasiveness of the prejudice because the philosophy from which the prejudice originates, Nationalism, – which, it should be underlined, contains desirable as well as undesirable elements – has proven itself in the last two centuries a very seductive philosophy indeed.nn”So when a worker arrives from afar and offers to work in this nation, for the most minimal reward, contributing his sweat to the production of food, this is apparently a bad thing?”nnYes, because, from a Nationalist perspective, the rewards distributed and the food produced are assets which belong to the Nation and should never be given to or allowed to be produced by “the foreigner” in the first place.nnArguably – and perhaps with some oversimplification – the most beneficial aspect of Nationalism (from a social justice perspective) is that (some) wealthier individuals and groups will feel some degree of affinity or solidarity with their poorer compatriots and the latter will consequently benefit, (where, absent the kind of social philosophy which cuts across economic strata, they might not).nnThe most detrimental aspect of Nationalism (from the same perspective) is that low paid labourers will sooner identify with their compatriot paymasters (who are in a different economic stratum & consequently pursue very different interests & agenda) than with others in the same boat as them who carry the label “foreigner”.

Thanks for referencing that Frederick Solt paper, Dan – some thoughtful and contemporaneously significant discussion and conclusions in there.nnI agree with you that Nationalism is not the only political philosophy which elevates altruism within a large-scale community above naked economic small-group or self-interest.nnAs you say, secular humanism or the fraternalism within religious communities do the same.nnBut (like it or not) Nationalism has a real-world practical advantage over these other philosophies in that (by definition) it addresses populations which live on the same (usually contiguous) territory, using the same banking, institutional, transport & media infrastructure and (most crucially) communicating in the same dominant language – all of which give it the support of the mercantile class whose members benefit from a larger marketplace than they could otherwise hope to appeal to and who can then sponsor the politicians to ensure that Nationalism continues to be actively manufactured by a unitary, centralised state administrative apparatus, guaranteeing the survival of that marketplace.nnBy contrast, the kind of Christian, Islamic or humanist socio-political philosophies which compete with Nationalism to create solidarity between economic strata, tend to lack the same kind of unitary production & administrative apparatus that National States have at their disposal, and, in any case, seek to target themselves at ambitiously broad audiences: populations and territories which tend to be dispersed and multi-lingual, which utilise different infrastructures and which have access to different media. Hardly surprising then that these competitors turn out to be less potent than Nationalism.nnI think the key to battling Xenophobia while retaining the benefits of Nationalism is to devote more focus to building “Civic Nationalism” as opposed to “Ethnic Nationalism” (both concepts less clear-cut than their name’s first suggest once they are put under the microscope) and (marvel of marvels!) that’s actually what successive UK administrations have been doing over the last 3 decades… though more, I suspect, because cheap labour comes from economic migrants (and cheap labour is what the Industrialist class wants) than because of any natural affinity with the aspirations of Internationalists.

“But (like it or not) Nationalism has a real-world practical advantage nover these other philosophies in that (by definition) it addresses npopulations which live on the same (usually contiguous) territory, usingn the same banking, institutional, transport & media infrastructure nand (most crucially) communicating in the same dominant language”nnGood point – although I do think that these things have become less important due to technology and globalisation.u00a0 We now more than ever associate and interact with people outside of our geographical country and more infrastructure now spans across multiple nations.u00a0 I know some people in Seattle better than I do most people in Leeds.u00a0 The idea of considering the former foreign and the latter my countrymen makes little sense to me.nnStill, I do agree that Nationalism has an inherent advantage – it’s certainly easier to get people behind it.u00a0 I wouldn’t equate the easy route with the best route though.u00a0 I would rather see Civic Nationalism than Ethic Nationalism, but I would also rather seeu00a0 universal human solidarity, even if that is many times harder to achieve.u00a0 nnMaybe I am an idealist? or maybe there is something abormal in my mind that fails to connect with the idea of exclusive groups in general?