Tough question: Would you consider Israel a nation based on this text?
Theory Discussion Group
Moved from /c/genzedong since the rules are a bit different.
This community is meant to educate, and people from any instances federated with Lemmygrad are welcome.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism
- Always engage in good faith (don't respond to hostile comments, just report them)
- Posts can be unrelated to the reading group but must be related to Marxist theory
- Keep comments on topic
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.
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.
i agree
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.
Only a nation to the extent pirates are traders, or the extent to which wearing someone else's clothes makes you someone else.