Suchergebnisse

A response to Davidson's "Stalinism, 'Nation Theory' and Scottish History: A Reply to John Foster" (2002) argues that while the historical substance he offers is valuable, his theoretical approach lacks for denying the class dimension of national identity. Focusing mainly on Karl Marx's approach to nationality & his scientific method, Davidson's key assumption -- that the nation is a capitalist phenomenon -- is addressed. Because Davidson comes from a Weberian perspective to formulate this assumption, a characterization that dismays him, discussion opens with a comparison of Weber's sociology & Marx's methodology. From this, how Marx applied dialectics to nationality & the nation is examined, highlighting The German Ideology & The Communist Manifesto (both with Engels, 1847). In this light, it is contended that Davidson is confused with respect to Marx's position on the nation-state, which boiled down to there being no exclusive connection between nation & capitalism. Karl Kautsky (1974 edition) or Otto Bauer (1907) are discussed & rejected as possible sources for Davidson's concept of an exclusively capitalist nation, which is a central conceptualization in the Weberian school. His Weberian account of Scottish society before 1707 & his treatment of the ensuing economic & cultural development are criticized for their dissonance with the available evidence. Suggesting that his disagreement with Davidson might be merely a matter of semantics, Foster ponders the practical ramifications of calling a Weberian approach Marxist & the application of said approach that produces a claim that no Scottish nation existed before 1707. It is thus concluded that a materialist history has salience & that a class analysis of each national component to expose its link to capitalist & imperial exploitation & traditions of resistance & revolt is essential. 46 References. J. Zendejas