×

Używamy ciasteczek, aby ulepszyć LingQ. Odwiedzając stronę wyrażasz zgodę na nasze polityka Cookie.

image

The Making of Modern Ukraine, Class 2: The Genesis of Nations (2)

Class 2: The Genesis of Nations (2)

from a thousand years to now.

Okay. I'm glad we had this moment.

I feel like this awkwardness has now been dealt with.

Okay, good.

So I'm not gonna surprise you

when I say that that's not how history actually works.

There isn't really a three part.

There isn't really a golden age, diaspora return to gold.

That doesn't really happen.

But the story is reflecting something.

It's reflecting a change that is happening.

It's a way of handling a change which is happening.

And that change is the entrance of the people into politics.

So the nation and the way we're talking about the nation

is a modern form of politics,

which involves, if not everybody,

it's meant to involve the masses.

It's not feudalism.

It's not the nobility being in charge, right?

It's not monarchy, it's not aristocracy, it's not oligarchy,

it's not rule by the few.

The nation means rule by the many.

Doesn't necessarily mean democracy,

but the nation means a form of politics

in which the subject of politics

is supposed to be the people.

That's an idea which seems very commonsensical now.

I mean, even the people who are against it

say that they're for it as you might have noticed.

Basically everybody in the world,

as they do away with democracy, they talk about how, yes,

the only way to have democracy

is to suppress all of these votes.

Only if I count the votes it's a demo-- you know.

But very rarely people say, oh, I'm against democracy.

It's commonsensical. But that's very new, right?

The idea that the people are the subject of politics

is only a couple hundred years old.

So these stories are a way of handling a transformation.

They're a way of handling change.

So now I'm moving from what they say about themselves

to how they actually work.

The reason that they actually work

is that in the 19th century, let's say, more or less,

there comes a time when you have to handle

a form of politics in which the people now matter,

large numbers of people now matter.

And so you need some version of the past

which accounts for that.

And the version of the past that you can give

is the one that says way back when,

the people were in charge

and now the people are gonna be in charge again.

Or way back when, the people were virtuous

and now they're gonna be virtuous again

once we do away with the empire or the diaspora

or one of the things which was in the way

of this pattern from happening.

So the story is a way of making sense of something,

making sense of a challenge, which actually had to be met.

And the challenge is what do you do

as the people enter politics?

That's a challenge which was met in all kinds of other ways.

Like the Marxists who we're still gonna talk about

met the challenge in a certain way.

So the people are entering politics,

there is some kind of transformation.

And I want you to mark this.

We'll get to this part of the course here in a few weeks,

but think about what is changing.

Is it that there's now a big capitalist economy

and so people are encountering each other in new ways.

Is it that there's now a functional state,

which is able to collect taxes

and make people perform military service.

These are some of the changes that are associated

with modernization.

But something is changing

so that it no longer seems normal to say

that the king is just in charge

or the nobility is just in charge.

Something is changing so that

that no longer seems plausible.

There's still kings and queens,

but they basically serve as the kind of rhetorical cover

for welfare states.

They're not what they used to be.

Fascinating as they are, the adventures of Harry and Meghan,

that's not what royalty used to be like.

It was a little like that,

but that was never the essence of it.

So at a certain point, it stopped seeming plausible

that a few people should be in charge

and how do you handle that?

Well, you handle that with a story.

So you have modern politics

and modern politics has to have a story

about how the people are coming into politics,

why the people should come into politics.

And this story is displacing other stories.

Okay, here comes question time.

What's another story?

What kind of story would that have been displacing?

What's a story that would've made sense? Yeah.

- [Student] So a king is chosen

by some religious, like God, right?

Now I'm the king and I control society.

- Yeah, okay. So divine right.

Or you're the king, because how about this?

You're the king because your father was king.

I mean, that seems ridiculous, right?

Just because his father was king he gets to be king?

Doesn't that seem insane?

Was your father king? - No.

- Okay good.

'Cause I get in trouble

if I get into revealing your personal life.

So if anybody's father is king,

I need to know now or in an email preferably, all right.

It could be. All right.

So that notion, so his father was king and his father,

it's absurd, doesn't it seem?

But in other historical circumstances,

it could have made perfect sense.

It obviously did make perfect sense,

but not in modern historical circumstances

it somehow seems not to make sense, but it's a story.

The story of genealogy,

the story that his family is better than other families.

Perhaps they're half gods, something, right?

What's another kind of story that this could have displaced?

Yeah.

- [Student] Something related,

but just like landowning people or landowning--

- Good. Excellent.

Excellent. That's a very good example as well.

But it can be related because the right to property

is inherited.

I mean, that's something which is still true in our system.

And it's commonsensical.

If Zhenya has a bunch of land.

If I have a million acres,

why shouldn't my children have a million acres?

It still seems commonsensical.

But the idea that there's a property class

and the right to own property is something special.

So you people over here have the right to own property

and the rest of you have the right

to work on their property.

That seemed plausible for hundreds of years,

but at a certain point around again,

around the 19th century, it stopped seeming plausible.

But that story that not just that a person,

but that a group is maybe different from another group.

Maybe the nobility thinks that it's descended

from other people, it often did, right?

Or the nobility has earned rights because historically,

the nobility fought the wars or something,

but they're different, they have the right to rule

and they have the right to own land.

So those are different stories which are displaced

by the national story or challenged by the national story.

And they represent different kinds of political systems.

For example, let's imagine an absolute monarchy

or let's imagine a system that we'll come to,

like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth,

where the noble class gets to vote

and the noble class gets to own land,

but other people don't.

And at a certain point, that starts to seem problematic.

So we have a story that brings the people

to the center of politics,

but doesn't say that directly, right?

It seems to make all of history make sense.

It's a story that brings people to the center.

And this is where I have to talk about Marxism

because it might have occurred to you that this whole,

I'm not gonna check you on this.

And I don't know how many of you

know very much about Marxism

or how much that comes across your education.

When I ask this in graduate classes,

there's the guy who raises his hand or the woman, it's like,

yeah, I grew up in the People's Republic of China

and we studied Marxism.

So you might have noticed

that Marxism also has a three part story.

Marxism also has a story about a golden age

and about transformation

and about the people coming to the center of politics.

In the Marxist story,

it used to be that none of us owned any property

and that was fine.

And then technology came along

and technology created new social relations.

And along with them came private property.

Private property alienated us from ourselves, bad.

But one day we will get rid of private property

and we will all seize it together

and that will be good again.

Okay, I'm simplifying this a lot.

But there's also a three part story. Interestingly, right?

Marxism and the modern idea of the nation

actually emerge at about the same time,

around the middle of the 19th century.

And they're very much in dialogue with one another.

And they're actually very similar,

one difference being that the Marxist story

is about the class.

It's about a non-national class, a working class.

Whereas the national story is about particular nations.

It's about particularities.

Or to put it in a different way, the national story...

Don't hide your phone behind your computer.

The national...

Don't use electronics at all.

The national story is pretends to be just about you.

But in fact, everybody's national story is very similar.

The Marxist story is supposed to be about everyone,

but in fact, the Marxists had a terrible time

getting the various nations to line up.

So the two stories are our in tension with one another.

Does anyone know what the Marxists say about the nation?

What the Marxists thought about the nation,

especially at the beginning?

Or wanna take a guess?

Or not.

Yeah? - [Student] Did they think

it was gonna be a transitional state?

- Good, true.

They associated the nation with capital--

either with feudalism or with capitalism,

but not with socialism.

So we're gonna get over it. Yeah.

Jack?

- [Student] Political and economic revolution.

So transition to this socialism movement.

- That's in the Soviet Union. Yeah.

So the Soviet Union is an attempt

to go through all the stages very quickly.

And so in the Soviet Union, the idea is that first,

we're gonna do the capitalist style modernization.

And with that, will come the nation, that's in 1920s.

And then in the 1930s we'll have an economic revolution

where maybe we'll get through the nation

very quickly that way.

So the basic idea that the Marxists have

is that the nation is associated

with a period of history that's passing.

And this is where they have trouble.

But if there's capitalism and the capitalism advancing,

and there's more nationalism,

that's a kind of misunderstanding.

So Marx and Engels had a tremendous problem

with actual workers because actual workers

were very often in favor of imperialism, for example.

They had a tremendous problem with actual workers

who were influenced by the national politics,

who had turned out,

were as nationally oriented or more nationally oriented

than the middle classes or the nobility.

So nationalism has a tremendous problem or sorry,

Marxism has a tremendous problem with nationalism.

And as a result of this,

some of the first people who theorized about the nation

in an interesting way,

were Marxists who were trying to deal with this problem.

Around the year 1900,

there were several Marxists who said essentially,

look, modernization isn't doing away

with the national question, on the contrary,

modernization is bringing about the nation

and we have to deal with that.

The nation isn't actually part of the feudal past,

it's part of the modern, even the proletarian future.

And so this was a Pole, his name was Kelles-Krauz.

And then he was in dialogue

with several people called Austro-Marxists.

They made the argument, an interesting argument,

that if you have capitalism that uproots people

Learn languages from TV shows, movies, news, articles and more! Try LingQ for FREE

Class 2: The Genesis of Nations (2) клас||Походження|| Klasse 2: Die Entstehung der Nationen (2) Clase 2: La génesis de las naciones (2) Classe 2 : La genèse des nations (2) Classe 2: La genesi delle nazioni (2) クラス2:国家創世記(2) 2 klasė: Tautų genezė (2) Les 2: Het ontstaan van naties (2) Aula 2: A génese das nações (2) Занятие 2: Бытие народов (2) Sınıf 2: Ulusların Yaratılışı (2) Заняття 2: Походження націй (2) 第二课:万国的起源(二) 第二課:萬國創世紀(二)

from a thousand years to now. ||тисяча|||тепер von tausend Jahren bis heute.

Okay. I'm glad we had this moment. ||радий|||| Okay. Ich bin froh, dass wir diesen Moment hatten.

I feel like this awkwardness has now been dealt with. ||||social discomfort||||| ||||niedogodność||||załatwione| ||||незручність|||було|вирішено| Ich habe das Gefühl, dass diese Unbeholfenheit jetzt behoben ist. Sinto que este incómodo já foi resolvido. Я чувствую, что с этой неловкостью теперь разобрались. Я відчуваю, що ця незручність тепер вирішена.

Okay, good. Okay, gut. Добре.

So I'm not gonna surprise you Ich werde dich also nicht überraschen Так що я не збираюся вас здивувати

when I say that that's not how history actually works. |||||||історія||працює wenn ich sage, dass die Geschichte so nicht funktioniert.

There isn't really a three part. Es gibt nicht wirklich einen Dreiteiler.

There isn't really a golden age, diaspora return to gold. Там немає|||||||повернення||золото Es gibt nicht wirklich ein goldenes Zeitalter, die Diaspora kehrt zum Gold zurück. Золотого века на самом деле нет, диаспора возвращается к золоту.

That doesn't really happen. ||насправді| Das ist nicht wirklich der Fall.

But the story is reflecting something. ||||indicating or showing| ||||odzwierciedla| ||||відображає|щось важливе Aber die Geschichte spiegelt etwas wider.

It's reflecting a change that is happening. |відображає зміни|||||що відбувається to|||||| Es spiegelt eine Veränderung wider, die stattfindet.

It's a way of handling a change which is happening. ||||management||||| ||||справлятися з||зміною||| to|sposób|sposób||||||| Es ist eine Art, mit einer Veränderung umzugehen, die stattfindet.

And that change is the entrance of the people into politics. |та|зміна|||вступ людей|входом||||політику Und diese Veränderung ist der Eintritt der Menschen in die Politik.

So the nation and the way we're talking about the nation Also die Nation und die Art, wie wir über die Nation sprechen

is a modern form of politics, ist eine moderne Form der Politik,

which involves, if not everybody, |включає|якщо|| die, wenn nicht alle, so doch alle betreffen,

it's meant to involve the masses. |||||الجماهير |призначено||залучити маси||масу людей to|ma|ma|angażować||masy es soll die Massen einbeziehen.

It's not feudalism. ||feudal system ||إقطاعية ||феодаліз Das ist kein Feudalismus.

It's not the nobility being in charge, right? |||szlachta|||| |||дворянство|влада||керівництво| Es ist nicht der Adel, der das Sagen hat, richtig? Дело не в дворянстве, верно?

It's not monarchy, it's not aristocracy, it's not oligarchy, ||royalty system|||aristocracy|||oligarchic rule ||ملكية|||أرستقراطية|||أوليغارشية |||||arystokracja||| ||монархія|||аристократія|||олігархія Es ist keine Monarchie, keine Aristokratie und keine Oligarchie,

it's not rule by the few. |||rządzona||nielicznych ||правило|правління||небагатьох es ist nicht die Herrschaft von wenigen.

The nation means rule by the many. ||означає|правління|багатьма|the| Die Nation bedeutet die Herrschaft der Vielen. Нация означает правление многих.

Doesn't necessarily mean democracy, |not always|| |koniecznie|| |не обов'язково|означає| Bedeutet nicht unbedingt Demokratie,

but the nation means a form of politics aber die Nation bedeutet eine Form der Politik

in which the subject of politics ||||предмет| in denen das Thema Politik

is supposed to be the people. |повинні||||люди sollen die Menschen sein.

That's an idea which seems very commonsensical now. ||||здається||здоровий глузд| Das ist eine Idee, die jetzt sehr vernünftig erscheint.

I mean, even the people who are against it ||навіть|||||проти| Ich meine, selbst die Leute, die dagegen sind

say that they're for it as you might have noticed. |||за||||можливо|могли|помітили sagen, dass sie dafür sind, wie Sie vielleicht bemerkt haben.

Basically everybody in the world, в основному|||| Im Grunde genommen alle Menschen auf der Welt,

as they do away with democracy, they talk about how, yes, ||||||they|||| |вони||позбавляються||||||| während sie die Demokratie abschaffen, reden sie darüber, wie, ja,

the only way to have democracy die einzige Möglichkeit, Demokratie zu haben

is to suppress all of these votes. ||cancel|||| ||stłumić|||| ||пригнічувати||||голосування

Only if I count the votes it's a demo-- you know. ||||||||demonstration|| ||||||||demonstracja|| |||рахую||голоси|||демонстрація|| Só se eu contar os votos é que é uma demonstração. Только если я посчитаю голоса, это будет демонстрация.

But very rarely people say, oh, I'm against democracy. ||дуже рідко|||||проти|

It's commonsensical. But that's very new, right? |makes sense||||| |Це здоровий глузд.|||||

The idea that the people are the subject of politics Die Idee, dass das Volk das Subjekt der Politik ist

is only a couple hundred years old. |||кілька сотень|||

So these stories are a way of handling a transformation. |||||||managing|| |||||||radzenia sobie z|| |||||||опрацювання||перетворення Итак, эти истории — способ справиться с трансформацией.

They're a way of handling change. |||спосіб|управління змінами|

So now I'm moving from what they say about themselves |||||||||собі

to how they actually work.

The reason that they actually work

is that in the 19th century, let's say, more or less, |||в||||скажімо|||більш-менш

there comes a time when you have to handle ||||||||взятися за

a form of politics in which the people now matter, |||||||||важливі

large numbers of people now matter. великі|числа||||

And so you need some version of the past

which accounts for that. |accounts|| |рахунки||

And the version of the past that you can give |||||||||дати

is the one that says way back when,

the people were in charge ludzie||byli||

and now the people are gonna be in charge again. ||||||||керувати|знову и теперь люди снова будут править.

Or way back when, the people were virtuous ||||كان|||أخيار |||||||moral |||||||cnotliwi |||||||добродійні

and now they're gonna be virtuous again

once we do away with the empire or the diaspora |my|||||||| коли|||||||||діаспора

or one of the things which was in the way

of this pattern from happening. |цього|шаблон|з цього|відбувається

So the story is a way of making sense of something, |||||||зробити|зрозуміти||чогось важлив

making sense of a challenge, which actually had to be met. ||||виклик||||||подолати

And the challenge is what do you do ||||що|||

as the people enter politics?

That's a challenge which was met in all kinds of other ways. Это вызов, который был решен всеми возможными способами.

Like the Marxists who we're still gonna talk about ||Marxist theorists||||||

met the challenge in a certain way. ||виклик|||певний|

So the people are entering politics, ||||входять у|

there is some kind of transformation. |||||трансформація

And I want you to mark this. ||||||це

We'll get to this part of the course here in a few weeks, my||||||||||||

but think about what is changing. |||||змінюється

Is it that there's now a big capitalist economy |||||||capitalist| |||||||رأسمالي| |||||||kapitalistyczna| |||існує|||велика|капіталістична|

and so people are encountering each other in new ways. ||||spotykają||||| ||||зустрічають|один одного||||

Is it that there's now a functional state, ||||||funkcjonalne| ||||||функціональна(|

which is able to collect taxes ||може||збирати подат|податки

and make people perform military service. |||odbywać|| |зобов'язати|людей|зобов'язати||військова служ и заставить людей нести военную службу.

These are some of the changes that are associated ||||||||związane |||||зміни|||пов'язані з

with modernization. |with modernization |модерніза с модернизацией.

But something is changing |||змінюється

so that it no longer seems normal to say |щоб|||довше|здається|||

that the king is just in charge ||||просто||керує

or the nobility is just in charge. ||дворянство|||| или дворянство просто командует.

Something is changing so that Щось(1)||||

that no longer seems plausible. ||||believable or reasonable ||||معقولاً ||||prawdopodobne ||||ймовірним

There's still kings and queens, ||||королеви

but they basically serve as the kind of rhetorical cover ||||||||persuasive language| ||||||||بلاغي| ||||||||retorycznej| ||в основному|виконують роль|як||||риторичний прикриття|прикриття

for welfare states. |well-being| |الرفاهية| |dobrobytu| для (1)|благополуччя|держави доброб для государств всеобщего благосостояния.

They're not what they used to be. |||вони|звикли||

Fascinating as they are, the adventures of Harry and Meghan, |||||||||Meghan |||||||||Meghan Markle Чарівні|||||пригоди||Гаррі||Меган |||||||||Meghan

that's not what royalty used to be like. |||królewskość|||| |||королівська особа|звикла|||

It was a little like that, |||трохи||

but that was never the essence of it. |||||core nature|| |||||جوهر|| |||||istota|| |||||сутність цього||

So at a certain point, it stopped seeming plausible ||||||||believable |||||||wydawać się| |||певному|момент|||здаватися|правдоподібним

that a few people should be in charge ||кілька||повинні|||

and how do you handle that? ||||впоратися з цим|

Well, you handle that with a story.

So you have modern politics

and modern politics has to have a story

about how the people are coming into politics,

why the people should come into politics.

And this story is displacing other stories. ||||Replacing|| ||||تزيح|| ||||витісняє||

Okay, here comes question time.

What's another story? |інша|історія

What kind of story would that have been displacing? ||||||||заміщуюч Что это за история?

What's a story that would've made sense? Yeah. ||||would have||| ||||||логічним|

- [Student] So a king is chosen |||||обирається

by some religious, like God, right? von einem Religiösen, wie Gott, oder?

Now I'm the king and I control society. |||||||суспільство

- Yeah, okay. So divine right. |||royal authority| |||божественне право|божественне право - Ja, okay. Also göttliches Recht. - Да, хорошо. Так божественно правильно.

Or you're the king, because how about this? Oder du bist der König, denn wie wäre es damit?

You're the king because your father was king.

I mean, that seems ridiculous, right? ||||абсурдно|

Just because his father was king he gets to be king?

Doesn't that seem insane? |||хіба це не божевілля?

Was your father king? - No.

- Okay good. - Okay, gut.

'Cause I get in trouble Бо||||неприємності

if I get into revealing your personal life. ||||exposing||| ||||розкриття||| если я раскрою твою личную жизнь.

So if anybody's father is king, ||anyone's|||

I need to know now or in an email preferably, all right. |||||||||ideally|| |||||||||краще|| Ich muss es jetzt wissen oder am besten in einer E-Mail, in Ordnung. Мне нужно знать сейчас или желательно по электронной почте, хорошо.

It could be. All right. Das könnte sein. Na gut.

So that notion, so his father was king and his father, ||уявлення||||||||

it's absurd, doesn't it seem? |абсурдно|||

But in other historical circumstances, ||||Але за інших обставин

it could have made perfect sense.

It obviously did make perfect sense,

but not in modern historical circumstances |||||situations, conditions

it somehow seems not to make sense, but it's a story.

The story of genealogy, |||family history |||الأنساب

the story that his family is better than other families.

Perhaps they're half gods, something, right? |||боги||

What's another kind of story that this could have displaced? |||||||||витіснити Was ist eine andere Art von Geschichte, die dadurch hätte verdrängt werden können?

Yeah.

- [Student] Something related,

but just like landowning people or landowning-- |||property owning|||property-owning |||امتلاك الأراضي||| |||propietarios de tierras||| |||землеволодіння|||

- Good. Excellent.

Excellent. That's a very good example as well.

But it can be related because the right to property ||||connected|||||

is inherited. |passed down

I mean, that's something which is still true in our system.

And it's commonsensical. ||logical or obvious ||І це логічно.

If Zhenya has a bunch of land. |Zhenya||||| |Zhenya||||| Wenn Zhenya viel Land hat.

If I have a million acres, |||||land area

why shouldn't my children have a million acres?

It still seems commonsensical.

But the idea that there's a property class

and the right to own property is something special. und das Recht, Eigentum zu besitzen, ist etwas Besonderes.

So you people over here have the right to own property

and the rest of you have the right

to work on their property.

That seemed plausible for hundreds of years, ||believable|||| ||ймовірним||||

but at a certain point around again,

around the 19th century, it stopped seeming plausible.

But that story that not just that a person, Aber diese Geschichte ist nicht nur die einer Person,

but that a group is maybe different from another group.

Maybe the nobility thinks that it's descended ||||||descended ||дворянство||||походить

from other people, it often did, right?

Or the nobility has earned rights because historically, ||дворянство|||||

the nobility fought the wars or something,

but they're different, they have the right to rule

and they have the right to own land.

So those are different stories which are displaced |||||||переміщені

by the national story or challenged by the national story.

And they represent different kinds of political systems.

For example, let's imagine an absolute monarchy

or let's imagine a system that we'll come to,

like the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, ||||commonwealth ||||الكومنولث ||||Річ Посполита

where the noble class gets to vote ||дворянський|||| где благородный класс получает право голоса

and the noble class gets to own land,

but other people don't.

And at a certain point, that starts to seem problematic.

So we have a story that brings the people

to the center of politics,

but doesn't say that directly, right? ||||безпосередньо|

It seems to make all of history make sense. |||||||create|

It's a story that brings people to the center.

And this is where I have to talk about Marxism |||||||||Marxist theory

because it might have occurred to you that this whole, ||||happened||||| ||||спало на думку|||||

I'm not gonna check you on this.

And I don't know how many of you

know very much about Marxism

or how much that comes across your education.

When I ask this in graduate classes,

there's the guy who raises his hand or the woman, it's like, da ist der Mann, der die Hand hebt, oder die Frau, das ist so,

yeah, I grew up in the People's Republic of China

and we studied Marxism.

So you might have noticed

that Marxism also has a three part story. que o marxismo também tem uma história em três partes.

Marxism also has a story about a golden age

and about transformation ||трансформація

and about the people coming to the center of politics.

In the Marxist story,

it used to be that none of us owned any property раньше ни у кого из нас не было собственности

and that was fine.

And then technology came along

and technology created new social relations.

And along with them came private property.

Private property alienated us from ourselves, bad. ||separated|||| ||تجعلنا|||| ||відчужила нас||||

But one day we will get rid of private property ||||||позбутися|||

and we will all seize it together ||||take hold of|| ||||захопимо|| und wir werden sie alle gemeinsam ergreifen e vamos aproveitá-lo todos juntos и мы все поймаем его вместе

and that will be good again.

Okay, I'm simplifying this a lot. ||спрощуючи|||

But there's also a three part story. Interestingly, right?

Marxism and the modern idea of the nation Марксизм и современная идея нации

actually emerge at about the same time, |з'являються приблизно одночасно|||||

around the middle of the 19th century.

And they're very much in dialogue with one another.

And they're actually very similar,

one difference being that the Marxist story

is about the class.

It's about a non-national class, a working class. Речь идет о ненациональном классе, рабочем классе.

Whereas the national story is about particular nations. Тоді як||||||| В то время как национальная история – это история конкретных народов.

It's about particularities. ||details ||particularidades ||особливості

Or to put it in a different way, the national story...

Don't hide your phone behind your computer.

The national...

Don't use electronics at all.

The national story is pretends to be just about you. Die nationale Geschichte tut so, als ginge es nur um Sie.

But in fact, everybody's national story is very similar.

The Marxist story is supposed to be about everyone,

but in fact, the Marxists had a terrible time

getting the various nations to line up. ||різні|||вишикувати| die verschiedenen Nationen in Einklang zu bringen. заставить различные нации выстроиться в очередь.

So the two stories are our in tension with one another. |||||||напруженні|||

Does anyone know what the Marxists say about the nation?

What the Marxists thought about the nation,

especially at the beginning?

Or wanna take a guess? ||||вгадати Oder wollen Sie mal raten?

Or not.

Yeah? - [Student] Did they think

it was gonna be a transitional state? |||||temporary phase| |||||перехідний стан| dass es ein Übergangszustand sein würde? это будет переходное состояние?

- Good, true.

They associated the nation with capital-- Sie assoziierten die Nation mit dem Kapital.

either with feudalism or with capitalism, ||الإقطاع|||الرأسمالية entweder mit dem Feudalismus oder mit dem Kapitalismus,

but not with socialism. |||socialist ideology |||الاشتراكية

So we're gonna get over it. Yeah.

Jack?

- [Student] Political and economic revolution.

So transition to this socialism movement. |перехід до||||

- That's in the Soviet Union. Yeah.

So the Soviet Union is an attempt ||||||спроба

to go through all the stages very quickly. |||||етапи||

And so in the Soviet Union, the idea is that first,

we're gonna do the capitalist style modernization.

And with that, will come the nation, that's in 1920s.

And then in the 1930s we'll have an economic revolution

where maybe we'll get through the nation

very quickly that way.

So the basic idea that the Marxists have

is that the nation is associated

with a period of history that's passing. mit einer Zeit der Geschichte, die vorbei ist.

And this is where they have trouble.

But if there's capitalism and the capitalism advancing, |||||||просувається вперед Aber wenn es Kapitalismus gibt und der Kapitalismus voranschreitet,

and there's more nationalism, |||patriotism

that's a kind of misunderstanding.

So Marx and Engels had a tremendous problem |Marx||Engels|||significant major substantial| ||||||величезну проблему|

with actual workers because actual workers |real||||

were very often in favor of imperialism, for example. ||||support|||| ||||||الإمبريالية|| ||||підтримували|||| например, очень часто выступали за империализм.

They had a tremendous problem with actual workers |||величезна проблема||||

who were influenced by the national politics, ||впливалися||||

who had turned out, der sich herausgestellt hatte,

were as nationally oriented or more nationally oriented

than the middle classes or the nobility. ||||||дворянство

So nationalism has a tremendous problem or sorry,

Marxism has a tremendous problem with nationalism.

And as a result of this,

some of the first people who theorized about the nation ||||||proposed ideas||| ||||||теоретизували|||

in an interesting way,

were Marxists who were trying to deal with this problem.

Around the year 1900,

there were several Marxists who said essentially, ||||||по суті

look, modernization isn't doing away Sehen Sie, die Modernisierung bleibt nicht aus

with the national question, on the contrary, ||||||навпаки

modernization is bringing about the nation التحديث|تكون|||| Die Modernisierung bringt der Nation

and we have to deal with that. as well as||||||

The nation isn't actually part of the feudal past, |||||||medieval system|

it's part of the modern, even the proletarian future. |||||||working-class| |||||||البروليتاري|

And so this was a Pole, his name was Kelles-Krauz. |||||بول||||| |||||polaco||||Kelles|Krauz Era um polaco, o seu nome era Kelles-Krauz.

And then he was in dialogue

with several people called Austro-Marxists. ||||أوسترو|

They made the argument, an interesting argument,

that if you have capitalism that uproots people ||||||displaces| ||||||يجتث| ||||||desarraiga| ||||||викорінює людей| что если у вас есть капитализм, который выкорчевывает людей