Alright, thanks for the answer. As you would certainly know, socialism grew out of liberalism. Trying to connect it back to ancient traditional societies (non-Western or Jewish or Christian) has always seemed like a stretch to me. I’ll paraphrase that as “we wouldn’t unquestioningly support every non-Western nation, and would only have to deal with it for a while anyway”.
What about the second question, though. What makes a nation in the first place?
Socialism didn’t necessarily grow out of liberalism, and in many cases socialism has been established in societies that are distinctly Eastern, not Western. Socialism isn’t something uniquely European, but generally human.
Either way, a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and culture. Much has been written on nations in the Marxist canon, and many bend these general observations. Language in particular is an underrated area of Marxist studies.
Socialism didn’t necessarily grow out of liberalism, and in many cases socialism has been established in societies that are distinctly Eastern, not Western. Socialism isn’t something uniquely European, but generally human.
Are you thinking of the way hunter-gatherer societies run? Or maybe you’re including gift economies as well? Feudalism obviously is right out, and that’s like 90% of economics in any agriculturalist society, although the exact hierarchy can be anything.
Marx, at least, wouldn’t have known that. It was the Victorian era of social sciences where the world was put on a spectrum of primitive vs. advanced. Marx just had everyone going through his version of the stages equally.
Either way, a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and culture.
Sure, I guess that’s pretty standard. I won’t pick at it more.
Language in particular is an underrated area of Marxist studies.
I’m not referring to the idea of “primitive vs. advanced,” but the understanding of socialism as a higher developed mode of production than capitalism. It doesn’t exist because some European thought of it, but because the mode of production had developed to a point where it could be observed as a natural trend. Eastern Marxism is entirely compatible with this idea, and while Marx’s ideas and writings are core to them, Eastern Marxists did not abandon their entire history.
Alright, thanks for the answer. As you would certainly know, socialism grew out of liberalism. Trying to connect it back to ancient traditional societies (non-Western or Jewish or Christian) has always seemed like a stretch to me. I’ll paraphrase that as “we wouldn’t unquestioningly support every non-Western nation, and would only have to deal with it for a while anyway”.
What about the second question, though. What makes a nation in the first place?
Socialism didn’t necessarily grow out of liberalism, and in many cases socialism has been established in societies that are distinctly Eastern, not Western. Socialism isn’t something uniquely European, but generally human.
Either way, a nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and culture. Much has been written on nations in the Marxist canon, and many bend these general observations. Language in particular is an underrated area of Marxist studies.
Are you thinking of the way hunter-gatherer societies run? Or maybe you’re including gift economies as well? Feudalism obviously is right out, and that’s like 90% of economics in any agriculturalist society, although the exact hierarchy can be anything.
Marx, at least, wouldn’t have known that. It was the Victorian era of social sciences where the world was put on a spectrum of primitive vs. advanced. Marx just had everyone going through his version of the stages equally.
Sure, I guess that’s pretty standard. I won’t pick at it more.
Interesting. I do love my linguistics.
I’m not referring to the idea of “primitive vs. advanced,” but the understanding of socialism as a higher developed mode of production than capitalism. It doesn’t exist because some European thought of it, but because the mode of production had developed to a point where it could be observed as a natural trend. Eastern Marxism is entirely compatible with this idea, and while Marx’s ideas and writings are core to them, Eastern Marxists did not abandon their entire history.
As for linguistics and Marxism, here’s a brief page with further reading if you like.