必要なのは国家主権の進歩的なビジョン

例によって､ソーシャル・ヨーロッパ・マガジンから。

https://www.socialeurope.eu/2017/05/needed-progressive-vision-national-sovereignty/

What Is Needed Is A Progressive Vision Of National Sovereignty

The last year has seen the Right and extreme Right capitalise on the dissatisfaction and despair fostered by neoliberalism – and usher in a ‘post-neoliberal order’. Their success is based on championing and monopolising the idea of national sovereignty, but only of a certain kind. The Left has accepted their discourse that national sovereignty goes hand in hand with exclusivist and right-wing ideas, rather than attempting to reclaim it as vehicle for change ・・・

昨年は右翼と極右が､ネオリベラリズムによって助長された不満と絶望をうまく利用し、「脱ネオリベラル時代」の到来を告げた。彼らの成功は国家主権の理念を掲げ、独占したことに基づくが、しかしそれは特定の種類の国家主権に過ぎない。左翼は、国家主権が排他主義と右翼思想と一体だという彼らの議論を受け入れてきた。それを変化のための手段として取り戻そうと試みることもせずに・・・。

So why has the mainstream left not been able to develop an alternative, progressive view of national sovereignty in response to neoliberal globalisation? The answer largely lies in the fact that over the course of the past 30 years, most strands of left-wing or progressive thought have accepted the false narrative that nation states have essentially been rendered obsolete by neoliberalism and/or globalisation and thus that meaningful change can only be achieved at the international/supranational level,・・・. Furthermore, most leftists have bought into the macroeconomic myths that the Establishment uses to discourage any alternative use of state fiscal capacities. For example, they have accepted without question the so-called household budget analogy, which suggests that currency-issuing governments, like households, are financially constrained, and that fiscal deficits impose crippling debt burdens on future generations. This is particularly evident in the European debate, where, despite the disastrous effects of the EU and monetary union, the mainstream left continues to cling on to these institutions and to the belief that they can be reformed in a progressive direction, despite all evidence to the contrary, and to dismiss any talk of restoring a progressive agenda on the foundation of retrieved national sovereignty as a ‘retreat into nationalist positions’ inevitably bound to plunge the continent into 1930s-style fascism.

ではなぜ主流派左翼はネオリベラルなグローバル化に対する対応としてそれに代わる進歩的な国家主権の見方を展開できなかったのだろうか？その答えは大幅に過去３０年間にわたって左翼や進歩派の思想の流れが、国民国家はネオリベラリズムやグローバル化によって本質的に時代遅れになり、それ故意味のある変化は国際的ないし超国家レベルでのみ達成しうるという間違ったおとぎ話を受け入れてきたからだ。・・・さらに、多くの左翼は体制は国家の財政能力のいかなる代替的な活用にも反対だというマクロ経済神話を買い込んできた。たとえば、彼らは疑うこともなくいわゆる家計財政アナロジー、つまり通貨発行政府は家計と同様財政的に制約され、財政赤字は将来世代に債務の負担を課すという考え方を受け入れてきた。・・・

This, however, is tantamount to relinquishing the discursive and political battleground for a post-neoliberal hegemony – which, as we have seen, is inextricably linked to the question of national sovereignty – to the right and extreme right. It is not hard to see that if progressive change can only be implemented at the global or even European level – in other words,

if the alternative to the status quo offered to electorates is one between reactionary nationalism and progressive globalism– then the left has already lost the battle

これがしかし、ポストネオリベラル覇権の散漫な政治的戦場－上述のように国家主権の問題と密接にリンクしているのだが－を右翼と極右に譲り渡すに等しい。･･･もし選挙民に提示される現状維持に対する代替案が反動的ナショナリズムと進歩的グローバリズムの間であるならば、その時左翼は既に闘いに負けているのだ。

国家主権を（右翼の手から）取り戻せ､という危機感溢れる主張です。