I like how Stalin styled the first chapter when he was defining a nation. Hopefully it’s okay I comment on here since I saw this yesterday on hexbear.
A nation is not merely a historical category but a historical category belonging to a definite epoch, the epoch of rising capitalism.
It’s interesting to read about that, especially since like. In our times nations are seen as if they always been a thing. Much like how people see capitalism always having existed. Meanwhile, these things haven’t always been around.
The chief problem for the young bourgeoisie is the problem of the market. Its aim is to sell its goods and to emerge victorious from competition with the bourgeoisie of a different nationality. Hence its desire to secure its “own,” its “home” market. The market is the first school in which the bourgeoisie learns its nationalism.
I found this part pretty interesting, and it sort of reminded me of something else. Mainly from Vol 2 in Das Kapital/Capital, Ch 14 “The Time of Circulation”, where one of the things he talks about, the modes of transportation and communication, being developed more to affect time of selling. While that chapter was not about nationality. It just likely that also had a role with the development of nations to? Especially when Marx talks about like… I’ll just quote the relevant parts
Putting it in spoiler tags since I don't want to take too much space
[…]The first to increase is the frequency with which the means of transportation function, for instance the number of railway trains, as existing places of production produce more, become greater centres of production. The development tends in the direction of the already existing market, that is to say, towards the great centres of production and population, towards ports of exports, etc. On the other hand these particularly great traffic facilities and the resultant acceleration of the capital turnover (since it is conditional on the time of circulation) give rise to quicker concentration of both the centres of production and the markets. Along with this concentration of masses of men and capital thus accelerated at certain points, there is the concentration of these masses of capital in the hands of a few. Simultaneously one may note again a shifting and relocation of places of production and of markets as a result of the changes in their relative positions caused by the transformations in transport facilities. A place of production which once had a special advantage by being located on some highway or canal may now find itself relegated to a single side-track, which runs trains only at a relatively long intervals, while another place, which formerly was remote from the main arteries of traffic, may now be situated at the junction of several railways. This second locality is on the upgrade, the former on the downgrade.[…]
Whereas on the one hand the improvement of the means of transportation and communication brought about by the progress of capitalist production reduces the time of circulation of particular quantities of commodities, the same progress and the opportunities created by the development of transport and communication facilities make it imperative, conversely, to work for ever more remote markets, in a word — for the world-market.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch14.htm
Since I imagine that would in some way affect the development of Nations as well thanks to capitalism? Like with more reach like with trains. Also I got curious to Lenin writing on Self-Determination, and its a good read along with Stalin text. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/
Especially chapter 8 of Lenin’s work. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/ch08.htm
Also this part of chapter 1 from Lenin’s text was interesting as well.
Throughout the world, the period of the final victory of capitalism over feudalism has been linked up with national movements. For the complete victory of commodity production, the bourgeoisie must capture the home market, and there must be politically united territories whose population speak a single language, with all obstacles to the development of that language and to its consolidation in literature eliminated. Therein is the economic foundation of national movements. Language is the most important means of human intercourse. Unity and unimpeded development of language are the most important conditions for genuinely free and extensive commerce on a scale commensurate with modern capitalism, for a free and broad grouping of the population in all its various classes and, lastly, for the establishment of a close connection between the market and each and every proprietor, big or little, and between seller and buyer.
Anyways getting back to what Stalin wrote. The rest of it like with “cultural-national autonomy” sort of reminded me of color revolutions.
Interesting, the link to language is rather brilliant. Question for you comrade, what thoughts do you have on Lenin’ mention of a single language and Stalin’ piece on linguistics/language? I’ll link it below.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1950/jun/20.htm
My thoughts are still forming, what immediately comes to mind is the use of pidgin english in colonial china and the forceful push of what is now modern-day french over other languages in the region. Occitan I believe and perhaps Basque (not sure about this one at all) I have a source here but I cannot make any claims about its quality.
Another thought which came to mind (seeing ‘quebec’ in the url of the previous link) is Cree which is to my knowledge the indigenous language in kanada with the largest geographical spread, I believe because it was used for communication between indigenous groups (who each had their own languages and cultures).
Apologies for the rambling, I meant to make a coherent point but instead I wandered off…
I am currently sick and it’s making me bored as fuck so thanks for linking this 👍 I shall read the others too, today.
