You can read the text here.

You can post questions or share your thoughts at any time. When we move on to a new text, this thread won’t be locked.

Suggest upcoming texts here.

Previous thread

  • 小莱卡
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    Tough question: Would you consider Israel a nation based on this text?

    • Violet 🏳️‍⚧️ Banned
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      7 months ago

      quotation from the first chapter:

      A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

      It goes without saying that a nation, like every historical phenomenon, is subject to the law of change, has its history, its beginning and end.

      It must be emphasized that none of the above characteristics taken separately is sufficient to define a nation. More than that, it is sufficient for a single one of these characteristics to be lacking and the nation ceases to be a nation.

      It is possible to conceive of people possessing a common “national character” who, nevertheless, cannot be said to constitute a single nation if they are economically disunited, inhabit different territories, speak different languages, and so forth. Such, for instance, are the Russian, Galician, American, Georgian and Caucasian Highland Jews, who, in our opinion, do not constitute a single nation.

      It is possible to conceive of people with a common territory and economic life who nevertheless would not constitute a single nation because they have no common language and no common “national character.” Such, for instance, are the Germans and Letts in the Baltic region.

      Finally, the Norwegians and the Danes speak one language, but they do not constitute a single nation owing to the absence of the other characteristics.

      It is only when all these characteristics are present together that we have a nation.

      there’s also his definition of Zionism:

      Zionism – A reactionary nationalist trend of the Jewish bourgeoisie, which had followers along the intellectuals and the more backward sections of the Jewish workers. The Zionists endeavoured to isolate the Jewish working-class masses from the general struggle of the proletariat.

      • Commiejones
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        7 months ago

        Jewish people are not a nation but the question was about israel which didn’t exist when this was written.

        I would argue that the israeli people are an attempted nation but their national identity is very weak. Their language is made up, their economic life is dependant on kindness from other nations, and the only shared aspect of their “psychological make-up” is the genocidal settler colonial aspirations and a intentionally manufactured persecution complex.

        Due to their settler nature the large majority of them have a “back up” national identity which they can choose to embrace when the going gets tough. They are a failed national project. They had the potential to be a nation but the foundation for their identity was unstable and they tried to counter that by building the nation aggressively.

        • burlemarx
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          6 months ago

          I agree but I don’t think they are a failed nation. Israel is a settler colony in process of expansion. It could turn into a nation after resolving its contradictions, meaning genocide/expulsion of Arabs in the region and becoming an stable territory.

      • CountryBreakfast
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        6 months ago

        Only a nation to the extent pirates are traders, or the extent to which wearing someone else’s clothes makes you someone else.