Is the nation-state a necessary stage?

[Dimentio]

Is the advance from a tribal system to a nation-state a necessary step in the transition from less advanced productive systems into capitalism (or socialism)?

[Dr Mindbender]

i think the argument can be applied to all or most forms of division which the beourgoisie attempt to apply, such as race, religion, sexual orientation labelling etc.

[Guest1]

Was the nation-state a necessary and progressive step in the development of human society? Yes, absolutely. The modern nation-state was a major part of the historic tasks of the bourgeois revolution, destroying local particularism and erecting a common language, laws, market and national identity and wiping out the fiefdoms and village authorities. The nation-state was not simply progressive, it was revolutionary. Nationalism in the time of the bourgeois revolutions wiped out the old differences and destroyed the power of the traditional parochial authorities.

The bourgeoisie has clearly failed in a major way to resolve the national question once and for all however, and we see this in the rise of separatist movements and racial tensions across the world, even in places like Canada, Spain and Belgium!

The historic task of the proletariat is to surpass the nation-state itself, establishing socialist federations that unite continents, and eventually the world. This is the real answer to the national question, in places like Israel-Palestine, the Indian Subcontinent, and across the world.

[Dimentio]

Europe's first true nation-state was Sweden, which became a unified political entity under a king named Gustavus I Vasa (1523-1560), who ethnically cleanshed two districts in Sweden, threw out the Catholic Church, and subjugated foreign merchants.

Sweden, one of the poorer and less developed countries in late medieval Europe, turned into a great power with almost invincible armies in the 17th century.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Was the nation-state a necessary and progressive step in the development of human society? Yes, absolutely. The modern nation-state was a major part of the historic tasks of the bourgeois revolution, destroying local particularism and erecting a common language, laws, market and national identity and wiping out the fiefdoms and village authorities. The nation-state was not simply progressive, it was revolutionary. Nationalism in the time of the bourgeois revolutions wiped out the old differences and destroyed the power of the traditional parochial authorities.

Whenever I hear of the progressive nature of the nation-state relative to history, I think of Cardinal Richelieu and the "Sun King" Louis XIV.


The historic task of the proletariat is to surpass the nation-state itself, establishing socialist federations that unite continents, and eventually the world. This is the real answer to the national question, in places like Israel-Palestine, the Indian Subcontinent, and across the world.

Sorry, but even federalism itself is a bourgeois notion (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showthread.php?t=61251). :(

[Comrade Rage]

Is the advance from a tribal system to a nation-state a necessary step in the transition from less advanced productive systems into capitalism (or socialism)?It most certainly is.

[kromando33]

Marx has already answered your question comrade Serpent, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and period of economic socialist statehood prove this. Without a 'state' transition to communism, the bourgeois would just use their influence to take over again and reinstate their dictatorship. The revolution must be defended after it has been completed by the state so that it cannot be reversed. That's common logic, the in creation of some kind of anti-hierarchical anarchist regime straight after the revolution would be a bourgeois wetdream, they could easily topple it, on the other hand it would be difficult for them to topple a strong proletarian state, that's class struggle 101 comrades.

[BobKKKindle$]

It most certainly is.

Fully agree. The nation-state is a product of capitalist development - increased commercial interchange between urban centers which had previously been somewhat isolated facilitated the development of a common language, over a large geographical area, and, as the bourgeoisie became a distinct class, demands for a market for commodities, free from the obstruction of feudal territorial divisions and old state structures arose - these demands took the form of nationalism and eventually found their expression in the modern system of nation-states, formally established at the treaty of Westphalia of 1648.. In the imperialist stage, the nation state assumes even greater importance, as monopoly capital relies on the use of state power (in the form of armed conquest and political pressure) to secure economic interests.


Marx has already answered your question comrade Serpent, the 'dictatorship of the proletariat' and period of economic socialist statehood prove this.

This is not the topic of discussion. Stop trying to turn every thread into some sort of anti-anarchist rant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

While we're on the topic of nation-states and the related subject of nationalism, given the reactionary aspects of "Balkanization" (and here I've expanded this to include Che's examples above plus Turkey, Iraq, the Russian "near abroad," etc.), what are the prospects for that briefly-experimented phenomenon known as "pan-nationalism"? Why was such experimentation so brief?