The patriotism delusion
JVL Introduction
In this article on Labour Hub, Mike Phipps argues that the left needs to engage with the issue of patriotism – ignoring it, or treating it as cynical manipulation will not do.
At one level patriotism simply means caring about “one’s country” and the people in it.
But it also has other connotations, based on symbols like the flag, the monarchy and the armed forces.
How can their resonances be challenged? It there such a thing as a “progressive patriotism”?
These themes and more are broached in a new Compass pamphlet Belonging, place and the nation, (click for free download), and Phipps explores some of its arguments here.
He concludes that the left needs to put together a clear narrative, a political vision, of what Britain is and where it is going which necessarily means confronting the Tory patriotism delusion.
It’s not, he believes, an optional add-on…
This article was originally published by Labour Hub on Thu 25 Feb 2021. Read the original here.
The patriotism delusion
Loading article text…
Nothing on MSM and toilet papers
Nothing on corruption of social media, blatant fake news and outright propaganda repeated ad nauseum
True story from 2019 GE
I’ve voted Labour all my life but I can’t vote for that Jeremy Corbyn
Who did you vote for in 2017
Labour of course, I always vote Labour
Regulation, 3 strikes and your out of business, along with criminal prosecution, could sort it out, but we never do
Well written and argued. It has convinced me that my instinctive reaction to patrioism has been to reject it for all the reasons Mike Phipps has mentioned. Wrapping oneself in the Union Jack is anathema to me. Queen and country likewise. Hostility to the emblematic flag waving public is amplified because our flag has been hijacked by the Far Right and white supremecists.
The arguments put forth in this article have jolted me out of complacancy with my views and I agree with so much about the arguments espoused by the need to engage with progressive patriotism and the need to be aware of just what it is and what it is not.
Thank you for that much-needed jolt.
The left shouldn’t sneer at our military but I do think we have a right to ask what they are for. I think most British people would talk about the defence of British territory including overseas places like the Falklands and Gibraltar. That’s why the very last thing we should be talking about is Trident. Because although I would abolish Trident, most people see it as essential to our defence. Instead of talking about Trident, we should be talking about Cyprus. Why does Britain have sovereign military territory in the middle of the Mediterranean ? It’s ONLY purpose is to facilitate military intervention in the Middle East. And why did a Labour Government commission two massive aircraft carriers whose sole purpose is for military interventions outside Europe ? In the whole post war period there has been meaningful debate about what our military is for. We hear vague statements like “defending Britain’s interests abroad” but never an explanation of what those interests are. We need to ask what are the benefits of of having a neo colonial military and why do other countries like Germany manage perfectly well with much smaller militaries ?
We shouldn’t get caught up in almost infantile discussions about what percentage of our GDP we spend on our military. Instead we should focus on what functions our military should perform. We need a World class military with the very best equipment to defend British territory and keep our citizens safe. And we need to say that our interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Libya have achieved exactly the reverse of that. Our citizens are less safe as a result of those interventions.
We can be proud of our soldiers without sending them off to engage in ill advised interventions throughout the World. Why for example is one of our aircraft carriers sailing around the coast of China annoying the Chinese government ? Would we ever contemplate an invasion ? Of course not ! So why engage in pointless military posturing when we don’t have enough money to fund the NHS ?
But this will only work if the left has a positive message: a strong defence that takes pride in our soldiers but limits the scope of what we expect them to do.
We must make clear that we are not weak on defence but we are against wasting money on pointless imperial posturing that actually makes us more at risk from terrorism.
When the public are better informed, we can start talking about Trident, but Trident should be the very last starting point.
My father represented Queen and country around the world. I was proud to be British, because of the Beatles, it was cool! The older and more aware I became of the realities, the more ashamed. Ashamed of the immorality, ignorance and stupidity of our governments, the greed and corruption, the perpetrators getting away with murder. And mainstream media brainwashing the public to vote for for them without question. The nadir beckons:.spending trillions on Trident, so destructive it can never be used.
At last – an article that dips a toe in the water of confronting how we feel about and relate to our country and national identity. It’s a very thoughtful effort, which makes it a great pity the author doesn’t acknowledge the elephant in the room. Our national identity, the calls to our patriotism, refer, when made by the establishment, to us as Brits – citizens of a three and a bit nation federation. This umbrella ‘identity’ is now predominantly claimed by English and (most) Protestant Northern Irish citizens. A majority of Scots self-designate as Scots rather than British, an increasing number of Welsh also self-designate as Welsh rather than British, while identity in N Ireland is still intimately related to religious identity (not necessarily belief). Only the English subsume ourselves as British, and only the English left cannot even bring ourselves to use the word English. So many of my left friends when asked to self describe will say European first, British next, then, maybe, Londoners. I find it extraordinary, and desperately sad, that those of us who are English socialists leave the ‘patriotism’ field wide open as a British patriotism, and to those from Keir Starmer rightwards.
In this day and age we need to move away from the concept of patriotism and also the idea that Britain is unique. We belong to the global community where every country is important. If Scotland becomes independent then should we consider the Scots to be traitors or are they not patriotic? No, of course not.
What a breath of fresh air.I have secretly hidden my dislike of patriotism in the usual meaning of the word. I was born during the war, and am expected to be a flag-waving patriot. I am born in the west, I don’t feel proud of it, I could have been born in a far worse situation. The basic values of the LP are what I try to live by, helping others here and abroad, and enjoy it. War is wrong, wasteful of the planet’s resources. Why are we so stupid to make arbitrary divisions, where none are needed. eg breaking up the UK, or EU. We are all human. (Well most of us).
Oh dear. What a reactionary swamp we are sinking in. ‘Progressive patriotism’ is an oxymoron. It makes as much sense as talking about an enlightened bigot.
As Samuel Johnson said ‘Patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel’.
When Hannah Arendt was accused by Gershom Scholem, in the wake of the controversy around Eichmann in Jerusalem, of lacking ‘Ahavath Yisrael’ (love of the Jewish people) her response was that she loved her family and friends but not a whole people. Love of Jews means hatred or a distaste for non-Jews.
So it is with love of one’s country. It means you don’t love other countries. Let’s call it by its name. Nationalism. It is the opposite of socialism. It’s putting lipstick on a pig.
Mike Phipp’s superficial article fails to posit any context to a patriotism that led to 30+ million deaths in the Bengal famine or the Drogheda massacres.
It is just such patriotism that led Germany’s Social Democrats to vote for war credits in 1914. It means a crossing of class lines. It means a betrayal of all the internationalism of Marx and Engels that the working class had nothing to lose except their chains.
Patriotism means being bound hand and chains to your ruling class. When working class people say they love ‘their’ country I ask how much of it they own. When they talk of a British culture I ask whether that is the culture of contempt that our rulers have for those beneath them.
Yes the British working class have always been patriotic, born of the crumbs of imperialism. That was their achilles heel .
So when Anne says that her father represented Queen and country I have to disagree. Her dad represented ICI and BP and if he had been killed he would have died for the sake of their profits. That is why you see so many servicemen amongst those begging on the streets. When our ruling class has squeezed all it can out of its working class recruits it abandons them at the drop of a hat.
As for representing the Queen that may be true but did her dad ask who the Queen represented? It certainly wasn’t him.
When political charlatans like RBL talk about a ‘progressive patriotism’ then we can see through them and their lack of class politics.
I prefer to pay tribute to the progressive internationalists who gave their lives for the Republican cause, be it in Ireland or in Spain during the 1930’s.
I’m sorry that JVL saw fit to print an article which legitimises all that is worst in society.
The delusion lies in the very idea of a “progressive patriotism”. Patriotism by its very nature involves the “othering” of the foreigner. In the last hundred years the only examples where patriotism has played a socially progressive role, and then only for a limited time, are those of peoples who struggled to liberate themselves from brutal colonial oppression. Where such colonial oppression does not exist, patriotism is just an ideological subterfuge to turn transform the resentment of the working classes of their material conditions into xenophobia and chauvinism, to persuade them of their common interests with their exploiters, and to isolate them from working class struggles abroad.
If “progressive patriotism” in a country which has not suffered colonial oppression were a real possibility, as the article seems to suggest, the English would not have to invent it: some other people would surely have discovered it by now. English patriotism is in its essence, as it has always been, nothing more than the last refuge of the scoundrel class.
Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. As true today as it was when it was written. Nye Bevan used to taunt the Tories about wrapping themselves in the flag. Awarding themselves medals for battles lost. Nothing has changed much. The Left have always had to defend themselves against accusations of not being patriotic. Great politicians like Bevan knew how to put the accusers down in debate. Over the last 41 years the Tories have presided over the destruction of the industrial base. There isn’t one world class company in the UK today. The blame lies with the Tories . Labour have lots of ammunition to show just how treacherous Conservative philosophy is. Orwell in his famous essay in 1941 wrote that business had nothing to fear from Hitler and Fascism except if it was a Jewish business. Lord Rothermere, owner of the Daily Mail described Hitler just a few months before war broke out in 1939 as “that German gentlemen” .
When competing against an over powering opponent and you know you cannot win ‘their’ game, fight a different game. Change the rules, change the game. I always did this in business up against slow moving corporate monsters. The Vietcong did it against the US. The Americans did it against the British. The Indians did against the British.
It is the height of incompetent stupidity and a dereliction of responsibility to fall for the Death or Glory trap. Like Scargill did to the miners. There is no Glory in a Glorious Defeat. To paraphrase Trump ‘Do whatever you need to Win, coming second is for losers’. We owe it to our people not to lose.
Tony and Steve, I’d like to correct your historical understanding of Samuel Johnson’s quote about patriotism. Johnson, as a reverent Tory and Royalist, resented the ‘patriot party’ the Whigs for invoking brotherhood and liberty rather than rank and obedience. It was often a limited kind of brotherhood as Whigs were strong on property and warfare… whereas Johnson opposed slavery and was kind to destitute friends. Nonetheless if push came to shove and we had to choose, better a Whig patriot than a Tory mystic imo.
Excellent article, spot on.
Having read this article I am still at a loss to see what could possibly be progressive about British patriotism. The outcome of rallying behind the flag seems to have ushered in an English nationalist government. The Tory Brexit project has weakened the Labour movement and served to divide the working class. The sad fact is that many on the left have failed to grasp this. Internationalism has been subordinated to notions of a national road to socialism. Talk about taking “back control” is meaningless if you are low paid or unemployed. Why dignify racism by redefining it as “progressive patriotism”?