BENGAL 69 enough to survive the collapse of such a feudal state or organized religion.^ In its classical form, the nationalism which accompanied first-way capitalism initially grew out of one nationality (say, the English). Later, depending upon the economic-political strength of the bourgeoisie and its corresponding ideological sway over the people, that is, its hegemony over civil society, the concept of the nation could include other nationalities (such as the Welsh, the Scottish or the Irish) since the new rational-liberal ideology could afford to dispense with the older ideological notions of cultural communities. For second-way capitalist countries (such as Germany or Japan), the weakness of the bourgeoisie meant a corresponding weak* ness of the rational-liberal ideology and reliance upon concepts of nationality, "national traditions" and, "national spirit". The nation here had to be defined very exclusively in terms of a nationality. Consequently, it was virtually impossible for second-way capitalist countries to be "multi-national". Nationalisms upto the later nineteenth century generally fall into the classical archetype described above. With the age of competitive capitalist imperialism and the incorporation of virtually the entire world into the sphere of the capitalist world economy, there grew up nationalisms of a different genre altogether. The crucial concept here is that of the uneven development of capitalism. c Third World9 Nationalism When there is perceptible uneven development within the political boundaries of a nation-state, including its dependencies, and the lines of division between the developed and backward regions, or more precisely, peoples, (it is not necessarily true that uneven development is always perceived in terms of geographical areas) are perceived along the lines of division between the ethno-culiural communities of nationality, there is the growth of separatist national movements. It is important to note the difference between this kind of nationalism which arises out of a perception of uneven development within the realm of capitalism, and the earlier kind of nationalism which represented the first consolidation of bourgeois nation-states out of feudalism.4 It is also important to emphasize that the crucial concept in analyzing twentieth-century nationalism, in countries of the so-called third world, is the uneven development of capitalism. It is not necessarily true that all nationalisms in these countries are primarily antithetical to imperialism. There are three tendencies to be considered here. In the first place, because of uneven development, the leading class, that is, the bourgeoisie of the backward nationality is necessarily weak. In most colonial situations in fact, it is the indigenous big traders and the uppermost layers of the professional classes dependent upon the colonial system who start the national movement in order to secure better terms of trade or employment. The fact that the leading class is weak and to a large extent dependent upon the imperial power or, in a larger sense, the world capitalist