Löwy's brief book, a collection of seven essays written between 1974 and 1993, is, at once, an exposition, criticism, and application of Marxist theories of nationalism.
Löwy's work combines the critical spirit of the young Marx ("We do not 28 International Viewpoint #314 September 1999 face the world in doctrinaire fashion with a new principle, declaring, Here is truth, kneel here!' We develop new principles for the world out of the principles of the world.") with the critical acumen of the mature Marx, a thinker unafraid to test theory against the actual course of history.
Löwy shows that Marx left no ready-made doctrine to appropriate and use. He aptly notes, Marx and Engels formulated an idea, more than an accomplished theory, of the national question. Of course, even a fully elaborated theory would not constitute the last word. Marxism, as a scientific body of ideas, continually needs to be measured against historical experience and developed anew.
A later generation of Marxistsnotably Rosa Luxemburg, Joseph Stalin, Otto Bauer, V.I. Lenin-defined and applied Marx and Engels ideas, in part through debates with each other. Their theoretical work remains, as does Marxist theory in general, unfinished
Löwy, an advocate and critic of the Leninist school, also defines what is most vital in the Marxist tradition in order to apply theory to contemporary world conflicts. Fatherland or Mother Earth is both a work of outstanding scholarship and political analysis that outlines the essential points of a contemporary Marxist program.
The Marxist legacy, going back to Marx and Engels themselves, is contradictory and ill-defined. The founders of scientific socialism published no major work on nationalism. From the Communist Manifesto, it seems they believed that developing capitalism would erase national distinctions, that the uniformity of proletarian existence would replace the particularities of national cultures. If capitalism meant progress, then the national movements which formed nation states, a framework most congenial for capitalism to develop, would be the most historically justified or legitimate ones. Thus, an evolutionist, economic determinist strain resides in Marxism.
Alongside it, though, are significant examples of political analysis-Marx and Engels writings on Poland and Ireland, for instance-which form a more sophisticated and useful basis to understand the national question, imperialism, and socialist revolution.
Writing in 1870, Marx saw that England's oppression of Ireland also served to misdirect and hold down the English working class. The economic and ideological oppression of the Irish and English proletariat combined to the detriment of both. "The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he feels himself a member of the ruling nation and so turns himself into a tool of the aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself... This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And that class is fully aware of it."
From an examination of these writings, Löwy concludes: "Marx thus formulated two concepts which would become the basis of Lenin's theory of self-determination: 1. the nation that oppresses another cannot be free... and 2. the liberation of the oppressed nation is a premiss for the socialist revolution in the dominant nation itself."
Decades later, in The Right o
Vations to Self-Determination, (1914
----- photo credits and running heads -----
8958 578999 99844640089
Lenin made a clear distinction between the nationalism of the oppressing nations and the nationalism of the oppressed nations. Self-determination of the oppressed nations was a basic democratic demand and should be supported as part of an anti-imperialist struggle. Lenin argued that unless workers in the imperialist nations supported the national struggle of oppressed people, there can be no internationalism. These ideas were later codified as statutes of the Communist International.
Löwy's overall purpose, on a programmatic level, is to clarify and sharpen Bolshevik doctrines on the national question by a thorough but fraternal criticism.
As Löwy explains in his introduction, Marx and Engels's incomplete theory of nationalities could be developed in a dogmatic, Eurocentric and evolutionist way (as Stalin did) or in an emancipatory and dialectical way (as Lenin, Bauer and others did). Löwy aligns himself, obviously enough, within the latter tradition of Marxism.
Löwy is especially effective in explaining the weaknesses of Joseph Stalin's 1913 work on nationalism, Marxism and the National Question. Since Stalin's pamphlet was written in Lenin's lifetime, a full decade before the degeneration of the Bolshevik Party, it had (and has) enjoyed considerable authority among Marxists. Both friend and foe of Stalin have declared this essay to be completely consistent with Lenin's views. And The ABC of Communism (1919) explains the concept of a nation in terms close to Stalin: "A nation or a people is the name given to a group of persons who are united by the use of a common tongue and who inhabit a definite area. There are additional characteristics of nationality, but these two are the most important and the most fundamental." Löwy, too, concedes that the main ideas in Stalin's work were those of the Bolshevik Party and Lenin.
However, through a careful textual comparison, Löwy shows how Stalin's work implicitly and explicitly differs from, and even contradicts, Lenin's writings. The most significant of these differences is in Stalin's attempt to define a nation solely in objective terms (language and territory.) Thanks to Stalin, Löwy says, this dogma wrought havoc in four continents, transforming theory into a true Procrustean bed, imposed by decree of the Political Bureau...
Stalin's theory defined a nation rigidly in terms of quantifiable, objective criteria. But Lenin and Trotsky, despite their praise for Stalin, had additionally emphasised the subjective element in determining a nation, an emphasis confirmed historically and also affirmed by more contemporary Marxist scholars. That is, a people becomes a nationalist movement or a nation not only when, or and language, but when it demands its right to be recognized as a nation. The consciousness of the masses is a decisive element for Marxists in defining and politically supporting the nationalism of the oppressed
Even a brief look at the causes which have led to war in Kosovo shows-by negative example- -the importance of the analysis that Lenin developed from Marx's writings on Poland and Ireland.
In the former Yugoslavia proletarian internationalism means recognizing the right of the Kosovars to independent nation. The more force that was applied against Kosovo by the Yugoslav state, the less that national rights were allowed, the stronger grew the demand for secession.
Lenin recognized that unless the right of self-determination were granted, voluntary union, or federation, would not be possible in practice. Kosovo bears witness to the accuracy of Lenin's argument. No stable solution will be achieved in Kosovo until its people are able to exercise the right to determine their own future.
The objective criteria for the war in Kosovo has long been present. The Kosovars, united by common language and religion, are the majority in a common area. In 1961 they were already 67% of the population of the region, and the percentage had increased to 90% in this decade. A separate state would be roughly equal in size to Macedonia.
These facts would not, by themselves, require the Kosovars to demand their own state. It was the political and economic repression of the Tito and Milosovic governments that fueled Albanian national consciousness.
Failure to recognize this principle of self-determination has misled some socialists in the United States to oppose NATO's war in Yugoslavia by supporting Serb domination of Kosovo. An effective, principled antiwar movement in the imperialist countries cannot be built on
WSIV91 A thorough understanding of Marx and Engels ideas on nationalism, developed by Lenin, distinguishing between the nationalism of the oppressor and the nationalism of the oppressed, is essential for understanding the crisis in Yugoslavia and building solidarity for the just struggle of the Kosovar people.
Löwy is very clear on this point. We cannot consider ourselves Marxists if we do not support the right of self-determination of New Caledonia's Kanaks, of Palestinians in Israel, of Kosovo's Albanians in Yugoslavia, of Kurds in Iran, Iraq, Syria and Turkey; and last but not least, if we do not struggle in the US against US military intervention in other
On one significant topic-the assessment of Otto Bauer's perspective of cultural autonomy within a nation for minority groups-Löwy departs from Lenin's theories of nationalism which were sharply critical of Bauer. (Bauer's major work is, unfortunately, not
The Bolsheviks, as is well known, recognized the demand for self-determination (or regional autonomy) in opposition to national-cultural autonomy.
One of the best known statements of the Bolshevik position is Stalin's 1913 pamphlet, Marxism and the National Question, which faults Bauer for an impractical idealism. Lenin sarcastically dismissed Bauer's theory as "his pet little
Löwy, instead, frankly acknowledges his difference with Lenin and Stalin and devotes a short chapter of Fatherland or Mother Earth? to a positive reassessment of Bauer's work. The qualities of Löwy's thinking, his way of approaching historical/political and literary/textual problems, can best be seen by a close look at his fresh treatment of this conflict, long since considered closed by most Marxists.
Bauer developed his theory of national-cultural autonomy in relation to the pre-World War 1 Austro-Hungarian Empire. For him, such autonomy meant International Viewpoint #314 September 1999 29
reviews giving each nationality within a multination state a certain degree of cultural, administrative and legal authority.
Although the Austro-Hungarian state separated into several smaller states after 1918, Löwy finds a contemporary relevance and methodological importance for Bauer's theory. Here Löwy's questioning is based, not on a reverential attitude to "sacred" texts, but on a sober understanding of the real geographical and political difficulties posed by burgeoning nationalist movements. He asks, "while the democratic right to self-determination is indispensable, how can it be applied to territories where nations are thoroughly intermixed without setting off battles, massacres and ethnic cleansing'?" The problem is most obviously posed by the history of the past
Stalin in 1913 argued that "The only correct solution is regional autonomy... [It] is an essential element in the solution of the national problem." Stalin's solution necessarily raised another question. Would the majority respect regional autonomy for the minority? Stalin answered as follows: "It may be feared, therefore, that the minorities will be oppressed by the national majorities. But there will be grounds for fear only if the old order continues to prevail in the country. Give the country complete democracy and all grounds for fear will vanish." That solution, so easy to write, has proven less easy to achieve.
Löwy's answer is different from the traditional, Leninist understanding of the question. Löwy forthrightly states, "territorial self-determination and national/cultural autonomy should be considered complementary rather then mutually exclusive."
In addition to the reality of recent inter-ethnic conflicts, Löwy also cites historical precedent for this opinion. He suggests that shortly after the October 1917 revolution the Bolshevik government implemented policies, inspired by Bauer, promoting cultural autonomy for the benefit of Jews and other national
On the other hand, it should also be pointed out that Trotsky, writing more than ten years after this period, in The History of the Russian Revolution (Vol. 3, p. 39), was thoroughly dismissive of
"As to the project of a so-called 'national-cultural autonomy'," Trotsky writes, "this reactionary utopia, borrowed by various Jewish groups from the Austrian theoretician, Otto Bauer, melted in those first days of freedom like wax under the sun's rays."
But Löwy argues that a more balanced assessment of Otto Bauer is needed. The real importance of Bauer's work lies in his analytical method and profoundly humanist spirit which enables Marxists to correct the flaws Lowy criticizes in the young Engels and, especially, Stalin. 30 International Viewpoint #314 September 1999
FOR ETT ENAT SOCIALISTISK E
SOCIALIST'SKA PATIE
Bauer's assertion of a nation as a common fate, regardless of shared territory, strongly supports the revolutionary appreciation of Black nationalism in the United States, for instance. Trotsky, in discussion with C.L.R. James, insisted on the same principle, without referring directly to Bauer. This is a question that deserves to be more widely debated. Recognition of the revolutionary potential of Black nationalism is still a contested point within the U.S. left.
How, then, would Bauer's theories apply to the world today? Regional autonomy, for all the virtues which it may hypothetically possess, has proven to be a precarious solution which can indeed render a minority nationality dependent upon the good will or the political farsightedness of the majority.
Regional autonomy for the Albanian population of Kosovo, to cite one obvious example, (granted in 1963 and expanded by constitutional reform in 1968 and 1974) was revoked a decade ago by the Milosevic regime, with predictable and terrible consequences.
Would a system of cultural autonomy, for all the virtues which Löwy identifies, have fared any better or proven any more satisfactory in resolving inter-ethnic hostilities? Lenin's insight serves today as a warning: "An 'autonomous' nation does not enjoy rights equal to those of a "sovereign' nation."
Löwy may be right to modify Lenin and Trotsky's conclusions about the sufficiency of the doctrine of self-determination. It is certainly necessary to compare their judgments against the reality of unfolding history. Without such renewal Marxism stagnates and loses its effectiveness as an instrument of revolutionary change. But more theoretical and historical evaluation of Bauer would be needed for Löwy's arguments to be fully convincing. The reassessment which Löwy has begun remains to be
In The ABC of Communism, the popular explanation of Bolshevik Party program written by Bukharin and Preobrazhensky, the chapter on nationalism is titled "Communism and the Problem of Nationality". The world "problem' is also in the title of the chapter on nationalism in Trotsky's The History of the Russian Revolution. This reflects the difficulty Marxists have faced in accounting for the rise and stubborn persistence of nationalism and the added difficulty of integrating such an account into the theory of class struggle and revolutionary
In other words, Marxists must explain why the workers of the world have been far more willing to unite against each other instead of joining in the international brotherhood of the working classes in the joint struggle against the ruling classes and their governments as Marx wrote in Critique of the Gotha Programme. The sad facts of history compel Marxists to find a clear and correct answer to this dilemma.
In the book's closing essays Löwy examines the causes for the resurgence of right-wing nationalism in world politics and assesses modern oppositional movements and revolts for the defining elements of twenty-first century internationalism. He surveys the role of nationalism in Eastern and Western Europe and the ex-Third World in order to explain the extraordinary diversity of the phenomena. His detailed analysis of each region, too complex for a brief summary, demonstrates the superiority of Marxism as a science for understanding conflicting and contradictory social struggles.
Löwy concludes with the assertion that a new internationalist culture is in the making. He cites, in addition to socialist traditions, the importance of ecology, feminist, anti-racist and solidarity movements, in addition to the human rights movements that are active in many countries.
Whether the new internationalist culture will unfold as a unified mass movement is too early to predict, but Löwy does point to a 1996 meeting, the Intercontinental Conference against Neoliberalism and for Humanity called by the Zapatista movement, as the most optimistic sign of a new internationalist alternative of the oppressed and exploited. 1908
Some minor textual criticisms should be noted. A tuture edition should update the bibliography to cite works published in English. There are, at least, two significant omissions. Ephraim Nimni's book, Marxism and Nationalism, to which Löwy devotes a chapter-length critique, was published by Pluto Press in 1991. Roman Rosdolsky's important study, Engels and the Nonhistoric Peoples: The National Question in the Revolution of 1848, to which Lowy frequently refers, appeared in English in 1986 as a special issue of the socialist
2W9IV9)
-NLP journal Critique. Also, Trotsky's 1915 article, "Nation and Economy" is excerpted in the Pathfinder Press book, Lenin's Struggle for a Revolutionary International. A second edition of Fatherland or Mother Earth? would benefit from a more complete bibliography, as well as a selection of Bauer's work as an appendix.
Whatever doubts or criticisms a reader may have about Löwy's conclusions, his book repays careful attention and study. No Marxist will be able to write well about nationalism without first absorbing Löwy's work. Fatherland or Mother Earth? is written in the spirit of genuine Marxism: critical, comprehensive, reflective, and partisan.
Löwy is thoroughly familiar with the classic Marxist texts on nationalism (he coedited such a collection in 1974), but his short book is not merely an explication of standard doctrine, however valuable that might be. Instead, Löwy considers Marxist theories of nationalism in light of historical developments in this century. Where the theory is inaccurate or inadequate, he does not hesitate to criticize it in order to obtain a better Marxism. In Löwy's hands Marxism advances towards what it was intended to be--a theory of understanding the world in order to change it. *
Electronic
Viewpoint
Some of the articles for the next issue of International Viewpoint are already viewable at our website. We are slowly adding a downloadable archive of articles published in previous issues www.internationalen.se/sp/iup.html International Viewpoint is also distributed free by email. We also have lists in French, German and Spanish. Subscription is free. To add your name, send a message to: <International_Viewpoint@compuserve.com>
The Neo-liberal laboratory The New Zealand experiment—A world model for structural adjustment?, Jane Kelsey, 1998, Auckland University Press, ISBN 1 86940 179 4. NZ$39.95 Only their purpose is mad-the money men take over NZ, Bruce Jesson, 1999, Dunmore Press, PO Box 5115, Palmerston North, NZ. Australian supplier: Federation press, PO Box 45, Annandale 2038 NSW. ISBN 086469 343 5 Reviewed by Mark Johnson
New Zealand was the first country where women could vote, the first with a modern welfare state. But today it is better known as the first, and thankfully the only country to fully apply neoliberal economic theory.
This radical exercise in structural adjustment was not implemented by a 'third world' government as a condition of securing credit from the international financial community". It was unilaterally undertaken by a democratically elected labour government, within an advanced capitalist economy. Successive social democratic and conservative governments applied pure economic theory to a complex, real-life community, with cavalier disregard for the social or electoral consequences.
The basic characteristics of structural adjustment are well known. Privatisation, abolition of labour market regulation, foreign trade liberalisation,and a monetarist anti-inflation regime. New Zealand stands out for the speed and depth of these reforms, and the social polarisation which is the inevitable result.
In other countries, neo-liberal governments used a strong state apparatus to enforce their policies. Only New Zealand took the rhetoric of "minimum state" seriously. From 1986, absolutely every state activity with a potentially commercial function was corporatised, and required to run as an equivalent to private sector business. Most were subsequently sold, often to Australian and US interests.
Government scientific research was divided into commercial Crown Research Institutes, which were forced to charge full-cost recovery for their services, and compete with the private sector for all new research funds. Public hospitals were converted to commercial Crown Health Enterprises. The former housing corporation was placed in charge of a declining state rental housing stock, and required to produce a return on its assets. Its role as first supplier to those with priority housing needs was abandoned. Local school boards were "freed to determine their spending priorities, and to employ staff of whatever quality they thought appropriate. Tertiary education was redefined as an industry providing private benefits to fee-paying students.
Government departments were separated into operational and policy units. Operational functions were run along business lines and frequently contracted out to private enterprise. The core ministries were put in the hands of chief executives on fixed term performance related contracts. Policy work was contracted out to a flourishing industry of private consultants and management
"An international model for economic reform" cried The Economist. New Zealand politicians and businessmen became permanent fixtures on the international lecture circuit.
These reforms provoked a severe recession and painful restructuring of most economic sectors. Between 1985 International Viewpoint #314 September 1999 31
* reviews and 1992, the New Zealand economy shrank by 1%, while the OECD economies grew by an average 20%.
The multifaceted attack on labour generated an annual productivity increase of 0.9%. Since wages fell in real terms, these saving were captured by the
The economy began to pick up again in 1994. Inflation was about 1%, short term real interest rates around 5%, and GDP grew quickly (5% in 1994-5, and 3.5% in each of the next two years. Exports increased by 29% between 1994 and 1997. The workforce increased 3.9% in 1993-4, after years of record unemployment and net population loss (through emigration to Britain and Australia).
Government expenditure now made up about 34% of GDP, down from 39% in 1991. The government boasted budget surpluses, cut net public debt from 48% of GDP in 1990 to 42% in 1994.
In reality, these few years of growth only brought the macroeconomic indicators back to their 1984 level-before the neoliberal storm started.
Despite all the claims by government, sustained higher growth rates were not among the structural changes brought
Most people were worse off. Unemployment and poverty became structural features. The number of people in poverty rose 35% between 1989 and 1993. Even if unemployment fell to its 1985 level (a historically high level by new Zealand standards), poverty and hardship would not be significantly
In other words, a more unequal society, in which many of the benefits won by working people in the advanced capitalist countries over the last 100 years have been seriously weakened.
Both books reviewed here attempt a social democratic refutation of the policies followed since 1985. The economically-minded will prefer Kelsey's exhaustive documentation of the reforms. Others will appreciate Jesson's fluent, passionate overview, and his portraits of some of the characters Colonial identity
Any kind of proletarian response has been hampered by Zealand's postcolonial identity crisis. Jesson, a leading advocate of republicanism for many years, argues that "colonial development created a 'hollow' society, with few intermediaries between the individual and society. Frontier "individualism"
grew hand in hand with a strong state."
When the Labour government chose to attack its core supporters, protest largely evaporated. Unsure about their own identity, white New Zealanders were apparently unconcerned about the growing foreign ownership of the country. What anger there was, was displaced onto Asian immigrants. 32 International Viewpoint #314 September 1999
Maori activists were among the first to understand the damage free trade would do to the New Zealand economy. (Chinese and Koreans make up 7% of Auckland's population)
The country's Maori population did not have a problem identifying the danger behind the neoliberal project. "Maori had traditionally been defined, and had defined themselves, in opposition to the colonial state. They had periodically, but only ever partially, been 14th Congres of the Fourth Internationa
Transformation and regroupment
Regroupments of forces determined to learn the lessons of the historical abomination that was Stalinism and to continue, against the winds and the tides, to fight against capitalism are being realised in a number of countries.
In all the countries where such possibilities exist, the organisations of the Fourth
International are ready to be part of the re-groupment process. We consider this as an important step towards the recomposition of the anti-capitalist left on a world scale.
At the international level, the Fourth International is an active participant in regroupment, bringing with it the advantages of a long tradition of combat against capitalism and Stalinism. *
Price: E5/$10. International Viewpoint, PO Box 27410,
London SW9 9WQ, Britain.
<International Viewpoint@compuserve.com> incorporated into its hegemonic realm. While the impact of structural adjustment fell most heavily and disproportionately on them, many Maori viewed it as a variation on a long-standing theme. It was not surprising, then, that the most (some would say the only) sustained political resistance to the structural adjustment programme had come from them." (Kelsey, p.318)
"On two particular points, English capitalism proved incompatible with Maori society. The first was in the market in land. English capitalism required that land be a commodity to be bought and sold. This was something that many wi tribes rejected. They possessed their land in common, and didn't own it individually. Land for the Maori had an emotional and traditional meaning that inhibited its use as a commodity, whereas in a market economy, Land has to be alienable.
*The other point of conflict was over the idea of sovereignty. The market economy requires an apparatus of coercion-the state-to establish and protect property rights. It requires a police force, a standing army, courts and government departments, all of which were completely alien to people living in self-sufficient communities."
New Zealand's neoliberal reform zealots thought the market was the solution to every problem-including the 150-year old fissure between indigenous Maori and the pakeha (non-Maori) majority. Since 1985, government has invited tribes to cede their historic claims to land and fishing rights, in exchange for a one-time cash payment, and shares in new private corporations which would manage disputed natural resources. They thought this would remove the national question from the political agenda.
A handful of Maori businessmen seized this project, and negotiated themselves into positions of wealth and influence. But Most Maori groups rejected these proposals, fighting a rearguard struggle against the corporatisation and privatisation of their historic lands. They warned foriegn investors that they were buying stolen property, and painted protest slogans on tourist landmarks.
Many pakeha (non-Maori) who lament the lack of resistance to the neoliberal onslaught ignore the constant, determined Maori resistance against benefit cuts, against forest and land privatisation, and against the corporatisation and privatisation of government. As Jesson argues, by identifying with the colonial state against the Maori, pakeha have been unable to articulate their own interest as New Zealanders.
Mind you, the New Zealand elite is even less nationalist than the workers. "Colonial though New Zealand might have been a generation ago, it had more autonomy than it does now. The closed economy did sustain a local oligarchy
(though it was British to the core).
"Now there is not even that. The country is dominated by an elite, based in than productive industries...yet it is no longer a local elite. These people justify their exorbitant salaries by comparing them with the salaries paid internationally. And they have a point. Their career path occurs in a global context-or an English-speaking context at any rate-and they generally work for overseas companies. Even local companies advertise their senior positions throughout the English-speaking world. These days, the New Zealand elite are merely the local managers of a branch economy... This country's business, political and bureaucratic leaders do not have a concept of themselves as New Zealanders.
"The psychological components of this dependence can be traced back to the time when New Zealanders thought of themselves as British. A panic developed in New Zealand in the early seventies, when Britain joined the European Economic Community. Ever since, New Zealand has been a colony in search of a
"At various times, New Zealand governments have looked to Australia, the Pacific Rim and Asia for an answer to this country's economic dependence. So insecure are New Zealand's leaders about their country's identity that they are prepared to dissolve themselves into whatever market they may find. (Jesson: 194)
However much New Zealanders dislike their government's statements about "being part of Asia now," global financial markets do seem to agree. MIT professor Paul Krugman explains the Asian financial crisis as the result of an over-dependence on foreign investment, which generated high growth, but exposed countries to the speculative propensities of finance. Asian banks, he argued, were not properly regulated, and took huge risks with the expectation that the government would bale them out. This is certainly what happened when the Bank of New Zealand collapsed under the weight of ludicrous speculative loans in the late Political instability
As Labour and National parties broke the socio-economic consensus which had given New Zealand such a high living standard, voters deserted them. A radical lett split from Labour joined Greens, Maori nationalists and disgruntled middle class groups in an exciting Alliance. On the right, populists like Winston Peters have galvanised many of the losers in the reform period. A small ultra-neoliberal group has also emerged-their latest idea is to replace the country's points-based immigration system with a public auction of residence permits.
Both authors conclude with a discussion of the alternatives for New
Zealand. Kelsey even attempts a checklist for progressives in countries where structural adjustment neoliberalism are only now being introduced.
In September, New Zealand will host a meeting of APEC heads of state. Once again we will face a barrage of propaganda about the New Zealand model. Capitalists around the world have learned from the Kiwi experiment. We would do well to do the same. * Mainstream Communist leaders Jyoti Basu and Harkishan Singh The Indian left and the bomb N. Ram, Riding The Nuclear Tiger, Leftword Publications, New Delhi, 1999, paperback, Rs.60; pp.120. Reviewed by Achin Vanaik
This book, though not carrying the official imprimatur of the CPM, to all effective purposes represents its perspective on the nuclear issue, one from which those of CPI and CPI-ML do not markedly differ.
As a long time critic not only of India's nuclear posture but also of this Left's understanding of the issue, I could either use up this limited review space to air my differences with the latter, or in general solidarity with its content, endorse its effort to convince the lay reader why the trajectory set by the 1998 Pokharan II nuclear tests must be reversed. My differences can be more comprehensively and systematically discussed elsewhere.
However, before examining the undeniable strengths of this book, I will register (but not elaborate upon) the fundamental theoretical-political plank of disagreement between this Left and others like myself who not only oppose India's recent overt nuclearisation but
V9IV91 also demanded earlier that it foreclose the nuclear option itself.
From this foundational disagreement arise a whole series of differences in regard to perceptions about the precise nature, limitations and possibilities of the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and other agreements; regional nuclear weapons free zones; the matter of the
"Red Bomb"; the efficacy of deterrence,
These differences arise out of very different understandings about what the existence of a discriminatory non-proliferation regime divided between nuclear haves and have-nots constitutes. Does this mean 'nuclear imperialism' also exists not merely as a matter of the intentions of certain nuclearly equipped states like the USA, but as a concrete and institutionalised reality? Or are nuclear weapons so fundamentally astrategic that no kind of flirtation with notions of positive forms of nuclear nationalism (or what this volume calls "nuclear sovereignty") is justified?
This book accurately delineates some of the basic causes and consequences of the May 1998 tests. There was no serious security rationale for what happened. It was not changing external threat perceptions that provoked the decision but the longstanding desire of the Sangh movement], in accordance with its miltaristic Hindu nationalist ideology, to have such weapons as an expression of new-found Indian 'manhood'
The book could, however, have focussed more attention on why and how over the last decade, changes in the general character of elite Indian nationalism greatly facilitated the Sangh's project of rupturing India's earlier posture of ambiguity.
The negative consequences are many. An expensive and wasteful arms race in South Asia has been inaugurated and the shadow of a nuclear exchange now covers future Indo-Pakistan conflicts when it need never have done so. Relations with China have been seriously damaged and the space for an Indian foreign policy independent of others, eg the USA has actually substantially
For pro-bomb advocates to insist that Indian security has been enhanced not only flies in the face of the obvious but shows ludicrous trust in the supposedly wondrous powers of deterrence
A separate chapter is devoted to criticising the fallacies and inconsistencies of deterrence-based security thinking. Two other chapters are devoted to exposing the scientific pretensions and claims of those who carried out the tests, and to an overview of the country's decades-long pre-Pokharan Il nuclear policy which expectedly is given quite uncritical endorsement and praise
N. Ram has warmly acknowledged the contribution of T. Jayaraman who is International Viewpoint #314 September 1999 33
* reviews almost a co-author of the book and whose expertise is clearly discernable in the more technical parts of the book discussing post-Pokharan Il claims, in particular highlighting the enormous Coming soon... difficulties India will have in establishing a credible "minimum deterrent" against any country other than Pakistan. The inference is that India in going nuclear has accomplished little more than nuclearising South Asia unnecessarily and that its search for extra-regional and global eminence via nuclearisation is a political chimera reinforced by its technological inadequacies.
In its final chapters, the author has warned against joining the CTBT, preferring to advocate instead national bans on further testing and conversion via Acts of Parliament-which, of course, will never happen.
This, along with a commitment by both India and Pakistan to dismantle any existing weapons and to abjure any induction and deployment of such weapons in the future, constitute the heart of the programmatic perspective which the author hopes can be the basis for mobilising a mass democratic campaign to reverse what has happened. This call for a general reversal and return to nuclear sanity can only be endorsed but there is one disturbing development the book has not taken account of, written as it was some time ago. A non-BJP Central government can only be a Congress-led one, but contrary to earlier hopes, the Congress party is now explicit that it will not reverse the dynamic let loose by the BJP. This makes the task of Indian opponents of Pokharan II all the more difficult as well as all the more urgent. * [This review appeared in "The Hindustan Times" of July 4, 1999] 34 International Viewpoint #314 September 1999
London Anarchist Bookfair 16 October, London, Britain Contact: <m.peacock@unl.ac.uk> Tel. 0171 247 9249. Participative democracy 10-13 November, Porto Allegre, Brazil An International Seminar on Participative Democracy, based on Porto Allegres pioneer "participatory budget process" Working languages Portuguese, Spanish and English. Places are very limitted! Cost: US$100. Contact the town hall, Praca Montevideo, 10, CEP 90010-170, Porto Allegre, Brazil. fax 051 228 8725, email <becker@gp.prefpoa.com.br> European Marches Network 13-14 November, Brussels, Belgium. At least one hundred unemployed, labour and campaigning groups are expected to send delegates to evaluate the "Cologne '99" events, plan future initiatives, and decide how to improve pan-European coordination of radical unemployment For more information (in English or French) contact: Michel Rousseau, European Marches, 104, rue des Couronnes, 75020 Paris, France. Fax: +33 1 44 62 63 8 45. E-mail: marches97@ras.eu.org Email lists are available, in read only or in write-discussion mod World Trade Organisation ministerial conterence Seattle, USA, 29 Nov.-3 Dec.1999
The European Marches Network will also organise a European Meeting against Precarity, in Brussels, in the first half of 2000, and mass mobilisations in France in the second half of the year. These will include a new session of the "European Parliament of the Unemployed".
Marxism 2000 Sydney, Australia, 5-9 January 2000 Journalist John Pilger and Latin America specialist James Petras will be keynote speakers at the second Asia Pacific Solidarity and Education conference organised by Australia's Democratie
Other speakers include Dipankar Bhattacharya (Communist Party of India Marxist Leninist), Chris Gaerlan (AlabKatipunan, Philippines), Farooq Tariq (Labour Party of Pakistan) and Sonny Melencio (Socialist Party of Labour,
Participants are expected from Japan, East Timor, Burma, PNG, Bougainville, Malaysia, New Zealand, Kanaky, Turkey, Sri Lanka, Scotland, Palestine, and Bangladesh. Australian speakers will come from the DSP, Resistance, Green Left Weekly, and ASIET.
Main themes of discussion include: Is Marx still relevant for the 21st Century? • The state of the world capitalist economy • Global political and military strategies of imperialism • Problems of revolutionary strategy in advanced capitalist countries • Problems of revolutionary strategy in developing countries • Will the socialist countries all yield to capitalist pressures? • Recent experiences in trade union and labour organising • Marxism and the national question • Women and socialism • What basis for international left collaboration and socialist renewal? • Can humanity
Additional workshops will focus on: The IMF and the World Bank — How they work • Imperialism's impact on the Asian and Pacific Economies • The contribution of Trotskyism to the workers movement • The history of the Philippines left • Issues in Women's liberation today • Internationals and international-
The DSP will use this conference to launch a range of collaboration projects with its international network: Joint Asian TU tours of Australia • Joint tour of women activists • Statement on unity and collaboration • Future joint educational efforts • book publication projects • Links magazine. Registration costs AS50, plus A$22-50 per day for accomodation and meals. For more information contact P.O. Box 515, Broadway 2007, Australia Tel: +61-2 9690 1230 <dsp@peg.apc.org>
----- pull-quotes on this page -----