Class 2: The Genesis of Nations (2) 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. von tausend Jahren bis heute.

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

I feel like this awkwardness has now been dealt with. 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.

Okay, good. Okay, gut.

So I'm not gonna surprise you Ich werde dich also nicht überraschen

when I say that that's not how history actually works. 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. 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. Das ist nicht wirklich der Fall.

But the story is reflecting something. Aber die Geschichte spiegelt etwas wider.

It's reflecting a change that is happening. Es spiegelt eine Veränderung wider, die stattfindet.

It's a way of handling a change which is happening. Es ist eine Art, mit einer Veränderung umzugehen, die stattfindet.

And that change is the entrance of the people into politics. 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, die, wenn nicht alle, so doch alle betreffen,

it's meant to involve the masses. es soll die Massen einbeziehen.

It's not feudalism. Das ist kein Feudalismus.

It's not the nobility being in charge, right? 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, Es ist keine Monarchie, keine Aristokratie und keine Oligarchie,

it's not rule by the few. es ist nicht die Herrschaft von wenigen.

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

Doesn't necessarily mean democracy, 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 in denen das Thema Politik

is supposed to be the people. sollen die Menschen sein.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

So these stories are a way of handling a transformation. Итак, эти истории — способ справиться с трансформацией.

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. и теперь люди снова будут править.

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. Это вызов, который был решен всеми возможными способами.

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. и заставить людей нести военную службу.

These are some of the changes that are associated

with modernization. с модернизацией.

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. или дворянство просто командует.

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. для государств всеобщего благосостояния.

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? Что это за история?

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

- [Student] So a king is chosen

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

Now I'm the king and I control society.

- Yeah, okay. So divine right. - 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?

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

Doesn't that seem insane?

Was your father king? - No.

- Okay good. - Okay, gut.

'Cause I get in trouble

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

So if anybody's father is king,

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

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? Was ist eine andere Art von Geschichte, die dadurch hätte verdrängt werden können?

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. Wenn Zhenya viel Land hat.

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. 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,

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

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 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?

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, 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

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.

But one day we will get rid of private property

and we will all seize it together 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.

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,

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. В то время как национальная история – это история конкретных народов.

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. 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. die verschiedenen Nationen in Einklang zu bringen. заставить различные нации выстроиться в очередь.

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? Oder wollen Sie mal raten?

Or not.

Yeah? - [Student] Did they think

it was gonna be a transitional state? 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, entweder mit dem Feudalismus oder mit dem Kapitalismus,

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. mit einer Zeit der Geschichte, die vorbei ist.

And this is where they have trouble.

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

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. например, очень часто выступали за империализм.

They had a tremendous problem with actual workers

who were influenced by the national politics,

who had turned out, der sich herausgestellt hatte,

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 Sehen Sie, die Modernisierung bleibt nicht aus

with the national question, on the contrary,

modernization is bringing about the nation Die Modernisierung bringt der 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. Era um polaco, o seu nome era 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 что если у вас есть капитализм, который выкорчевывает людей