Cosmopolitanism and patriotism in science. Patriotism in different social models
Some people believe that true patriotism excludes cosmopolitanism. This is mistake. Every true patriot is cosmopolitan and every true cosmopolitan patriot. Cosmopolitans serve their country and strive to elevate it intellectually, materially, and morally. They train the best representatives of humanity and facilitate their well-being of society. If every man must be raised separately, therefore must every nation be raised in his own own way, if humanity is to realize its full potential. Every person should know about the sacredness of their national and individual identity. In addition, each nation must respect and develop its unique traditions. When nations learn to respect their traditions, they will, in their own individual ways, enhance the collective strength and beauty of the entire world.
Every patriot is honorably bound to serve his country with all his might. His job is to think about the welfare of his fellow citizens. To the extent that his ideas are based on reality, his work will bear fruit in its native land, and will benefit all mankind. Thomas Edison is an American scientist, but the whole world benefits from his inventions. Shakespeare is British through and through, but his works sweeten the whole world to this day. In the same way, Goethe, Cervantes and other geniuses wrote for their people, but their work was done by their children throughout the earth.
Every genius feeds on his native land. Geniuses are those who can be received by other countries as their own sons. the birthplace of a genius exceeds the boundaries of his native land; such a person relates to the whole world. However, the work of genius can find its fullest expression only in its native soil. Hamlet and King Lear will never sound as sweet as they do to the ears of an educated Englishman who reads the plays in his own language. Likewise, no matter how excellent the translation, Rustaveli's Knight tiger skin will never sound as sweet as it does when read in the language in which it was written. Even if the reader understands Georgian, as well as the native Georgian speaker, the nuances will always be hidden from those who do not native ear, which were not raised to the music of the beauty of the poem. Because they are human, geniuses have a native land that they love and cherish. But their works are destined to rise above such limitations, because their writing belongs, like any other work of science or philosophy, to the world.
Science and genius show us the way to cosmopolitanism, but only with the help of patriotism and national feeling. If every country became aware of its economic, political and social situation, if the economic stratification that dominates the modern world were destroyed, peoples would stop trying to conquer each other. The robberies and wars that rule the earth will come to an end.
Patriotism depends on and draws inspiration from life. Coeval with human existence, it contains within itself powers that no sane person can negate: language, history, heroes, native land, and literary traditions.
From the second, that the child sees his homeland, he seeks a livelihood from it; he needs someone to look after him, milk and food to feed him, and lullabies to give him peace. The child begins to love his native land in the space where he was born and raised, under the guidance of his mother. Thus, patriotism is born: the youth feels united with those whose voices he gets used to, from whom he receives his first impressions. This is why he loves language, through which he came to know himself, and through which he learned to regard those who speak and sing in their language as his own people.
the vague talk of his village, which is of little use to the rest of the world, is for him the essence of his being, the most valuable element in his cultural heritage, and the basis of his self-awareness. When he meets his compatriot in another part of the world, whether he is a thief or some other kind of criminal, his heart is bound to rejoice. Until the child begins to see more peace, his soul is connected with the village in which he was born and where he spent his childhood.
It is impossible to imagine a sane person for whom one small part of the world does not mean more than all other places in the Universe combined. For what? Because no one can love ten thousand places at the same time. We were only born once, in one and unique place, into one family. The man who claims to love every nation to the same degree and in the same way is a liar. Either he is a hypocrite, or crazy, or he is prohibited from telling the truth by the doctrines of his political party. Even an abandoned child, brought up in an orphanage, who has hundreds of people to look after him, and who hears thousands of languages spoken around him, will, as he gains self-awareness, end up choosing only one language and counting only one country like his homeland.
Patriotism is more a matter of feeling than of intellect, although for some reason people have always cherished their homeland. Cosmopolitanism is only a matter of the brain; it has nothing to do with the feelings that occur in the heart. However, it is the basis of the solution to the tragedy that haunts humanity today, for only through cosmopolitanism can we save the world from ethnic hatred and self-destruction.
We must understand cosmopolitanism as follows: listen to the needs of your country, listen to the wisdom of your people, devote yourself to their welfare, do not hate other peoples or envy their happiness, do not prevent other countries from achieving their goals. Work day by day, when no one will subjugate his nation and work for its progress until it is equal to the leading countries of the world. He who denies his country while he calls himself a cosmopolitan will be crippled by illusions. Although he presents himself as a lover of noble feelings, such a person is unconsciously an enemy of humanity. May God protect us from this pseudo-cosmopolitanism that requires everyone to deny its birthplace. This kind of cosmopolitanism means a denial of oneself. Each nation seeks the freedom and means to govern itself independently of each other. The individual development of nations is a condition for the development of all humanity
translated from Georgian by Rebecca Gould
Vazha-Pshavela (1905), Txzulebata sruli krebuli at tomad (Tbilisi: Sabchota Sakartvelo 1964), 9: 252-254.
The essence of the falsification of Russian history begun by liberal-bourgeois circles - both homegrown and overseas - is to replace our common past, the biography of the people, and with it the biographies of millions of compatriots who dedicated their lives to the revival and prosperity of our Motherland, the struggle for her freedom from foreign domination.
Falsification of history is an attempt to brazenly replace Russia itself. Anti-Sovietists chose the history of the heroic feat of the Soviet people, who liberated the world from German fascism, as one of the main objects of falsification. It is clear that sincere patriots do not accept this game of thimble-makers. Therefore, Pravda readers warmly approved of what the newspaper published on the eve of the 70th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Patriotic War article by a front-line soldier, Doctor of Philology, honorary professor Tverskoy state university Alexander Ognev and persistently recommended that the newspaper continue publishing his exposure of history falsifiers. Fulfilling the wishes of readers, the editorial board of Pravda decided to publish chapters of the research by Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation A.V. Ognev in the Friday issues of the newspaper.
Centuries-old tradition
Liberal Westernizers are trying with all their might to “break the civilizational core of Russia”, to transform the original Russian civilization with thousand years of history into "ethnographic material". The main reason for this position was explained by the historian M. Gefter, who argued that neither “liberalization” nor “democratization” of Russia is possible without a transformation of its ethnic consciousness. But its deformation is hampered by traditions - historically established customs, norms of behavior, views, tastes passed on from generation to generation. Traditions play a huge role in the life of peoples. It is generally accepted that the British have an extreme respect for tradition, for whom it is sometimes above all else. Jews as a nation survived as a result of the fact that their families persistently instilled in their children admiration for Jewish national traditions.
When Westerners seek to distort Russian self-awareness and destroy the traditions developed by the people, they rely primarily on depriving us of patriotism - one of the main values of our culture. IN AND. Lenin wrote: “Patriotism is one of the most profound feelings, consolidated by centuries and millennia of isolated fatherlands.”
During the Great Patriotic War, it became especially clear that the best that is in the Russian national character, including the traditions of the Russian army, can effectively help defeat the enemy. But this indisputable fact is distorted and distorted by our ideological opponents. Thus, Zh. Medvedev stated: during the difficult times of the war, Stalin and his associates “realized that neither “Soviet patriotism” nor the Red Army could ensure victory over the German army, imbued with the spirit of German “racial nationalism.”
In turn, today's liberals declare that “for a war with a powerful external enemy, the communist idea is powerless, we need a national, Russian idea... The “Leader of the Nations” cunningly decided that the Soviet must be presented as Russian.” K. Azadovsky and B. Egorov condemned Stalin for the fact that during the war he “openly flirted with the Russian people, demonstrating his patriotism, which was more Russian than class-Soviet.” The communist idea was by no means powerless, but its influence was complemented and expanded by the idea of Russian patriotism, which was extremely important during the harsh years of the Patriotic War.
After the October Revolution, there was a period when everything connected with the old social system was considered unnecessary. In the 1920s, history was not studied in school. Lunacharsky in his article “Enlightenment and Revolution” instructed: “Teaching history in the direction of consciousness of national pride, national feeling must be discarded.” The poet D. Altauzen in 1930 regretted that Minin and Pozharsky “accidentally... did not break their necks,” and declared: “Just think - they saved Russia! Or maybe it would be better not to save?
Furious would-be “internationalists” crossed out the historical achievements of pre-revolutionary Russia, eradicated patriotic feelings among our people, and tried to fight against national traditions in literature and art. They often accused the best figures of Russian culture of great-power chauvinism. Defenders of national traditions in those years were pushed aside from the management of theaters and creative unions.
But anti-Russian motives began to impose themselves in unprecedented numbers when Western liberals captured the state. Thus, in the textbook “History of Russian Literature of the 20th Century (20-90s),” edited by Kormilov, it is stated that “the theme of Russia... after Yesenin’s death disappeared for a long time,” but does not say why this happened. Let me remind you: Yesenin considered the main misfortune of his fellow poets to be that they “have no sense of homeland.” In 1914, he wrote: “Oh, my Rus', dear homeland,” and 10 years later he spoke about his destiny like this:
But even then
When in the whole planet
The tribal enmity will pass,
Lies and sadness will disappear, -
I will chant
With the whole being in the poet
Sixth of the land
With a short title
"Rus".
All of Yesenin’s work is permeated with a reverent attitude towards Russia. The persecutors of Russian culture mockingly called him a kulak bard, fiercely persecuted his poetry, sought to prevent it from reaching the general reader, to defame the poet in his eyes. In 1923 Yesenin, as well as poets
S. Klychkov and A. Ganin were accused of anti-Semitism without any reason. A. Bezymensky at the VI Congress of Soviets of the USSR declared “kulak poets like Klyuev and Klychkov” to be “poetic dead” and ranted in a victorious frenzy: “Our successes, the successes of the USSR, will be measured by the degree of elimination of the image of the enemy that embodies the concept "Rasseyushka-Rus":
"Rasseyushka-Rus"
I repeat again,
So that such words
not to say forever.
"Rasseyushka-Rus" -
cursed word
Three fields, swamps
and dead rivers.
The most important Soviet value
In the mid-30s, this trend began to receive effective resistance. The Politburo of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks took a course towards recognizing the traditional achievements of Russian culture and restoring a number of values of the pre-revolutionary past. On December 14, 1936, in a resolution of the Committee for Arts under the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR, D. Bedny's play “Bogatyrs” was assessed “as alien to Soviet art”, since “it indiscriminately denigrates the Russian heroes epic epic in the history of the Russian people, Kievan Rus." In the resolution of the Union board adopted in 1937 Soviet writers poems humiliating Russia were called politically harmful. In the Paris newspaper " Last news” dated May 20, 1937, G. Adamovich noted: “Several years ago, love for the fatherland was not among the essential duties of a Soviet citizen. Now patriotism is precisely a duty.”
In 1938, a patriotic film about the victory of Alexander Nevsky over the German knights in 1242 on Lake Peipus was released, in 1937-1939 the film “Peter the Great” was created, in 1939 – “Minin and Pozharsky”. A prominent figure in the Cadet Party, P. Milyukov, emphasized in 1939: “Stalin is a brilliant politician, because he felt one most important thing for any politician: Stalin returned Russia to the mainstream.” traditional society" On April 20, 1941, G. Dimitrov recorded Stalin’s statement: “Now national tasks for each country come to the fore.” Stalin's great merit lies in the fact that he united the power of socialist ideology and popular and state patriotism.
M. Sholokhov, A. Tolstoy, L. Leonov, A. Fadeev, A. Tvardovsky, M. Isakovsky, D. Bedny, A. Akhmatova, I. Erenburg, A. Prokofiev, A. Surkov, N. Rylenkov, K. During the Great Patriotic War, Simonov and other prominent wordsmiths turned to the heroic pages of national history. They wrote about Russia with admiration and faith in its mighty strengths and capabilities. Sholokhov highly valued A. Tolstoy for the fact that he, “a writer of great Russian soul and versatile, bright talent... found simple, sincere words to express his love for the Soviet fatherland, for its people, for everything that is dear to the heart of the Russian person.” At that time, the concepts of “patriotism” and “Motherland” were filled with new colors.
National pathos is clearly reflected in the titles of the works: “Russian character”, “Russian warriors”, “Russian strength”, “Angry Russia”, “Where did the Russian land come from” by A. Tolstoy, “Glory to Russia” by L. Leonov, “To the Russian woman” "M. Isakovsky, "Russia" by A. Prokofiev, "Russian people" by K. Simonov, "We are the Russian people" by Vs. Vishnevsky, “Ivan Nikulin - Russian sailor” by L. Solovyov, etc. In those years, the collections “Russian folk songs”, “Russian poets about the Motherland”, N. Piksanov’s brochure “Russian fiction about the national struggle against Napoleon”, research by V. Grekov “Rus’ Struggle for the Creation of its State”, D. Likhachev’s “Defense of Old Russian Cities”, works by A. Egolin “The Greatness of Russian Literature”, “Patriotism of Pushkin”, “Nekrasov and the Motherland”.
During the war, the 700th anniversary of Alexander Nevsky's victory on ice was celebrated Lake Peipsi in 1242. On April 5, 1942, Pravda published articles about this significant victory (“To the 700th anniversary Battle on the Ice") and "Labor" ("Glorious traditions of Russian weapons").
Zh. Medvedev stated that “already in August or early September 1942, Stalin sharply changed the course of the entire domestic policy, starting the restoration of Russian historical traditions, primarily in the army." As proof of this idea, he states: “The traditional Russian military ranks were restored: sergeant, lieutenant, captain, major and colonel.” But the listed ranks were introduced by the Central Executive Committee and the Council of People's Commissars of the USSR on September 22, 1935, and general and admiral ranks in 1940. Zh. Medvedev considered the return to a number of attributes of the Russian army to be nationalist reforms, giving them a negative assessment.
An important facet of the wartime ideological atmosphere is revealed by the decision made on January 13, 1944 by the executive committee of the Leningrad City Council of Workers' Deputies: “In view of the fact that the former names of some streets, avenues, embankments and squares of Leningrad are closely connected with the history and characteristic features of the city and have firmly entered into everyday use population, due to which they better ensure normal intra-city communications, the Executive Committee of the Leningrad Council of Workers’ Deputies decides to restore the names of a number of streets, avenues, embankments and squares of the city.” The names “Prospekt 25 Oktyabrya”, “Street 3 July”, “Prospect of the Red Commanders” and others were replaced by the previous names: “Nevsky Prospekt”, “Sadovaya Street”, “Izmailovsky Prospekt”.
Incompatible with cosmopolitanism
The basis of patriotism is love for one’s Fatherland, the historical right of the people to preserve their national and state identity. Fadeev noted in 1943 that at that time some cultural figures were not sufficiently aware of why “the question of the national pride of the Russian people” was becoming acute, that among well-known circles of the intelligentsia there were “still many people who understand internationalism in a vulgar cosmopolitan spirit... It seems to me that Ehrenburg did not however, he fully understands the entire significance of the national question in the field of culture and, without noticing it, contrasts the universal significance true culture her national roots."
D. Samoilov wrote on September 6, 1944 to S. Narovchatov about his disagreements with K. Simonov: “Our difference from him is so fundamental that I do not foresee any ideological rapprochement. The point is that Simonov does not see the Revolution behind Russia. For us, Russia is the embodiment of the Revolution.” Somewhat later, he emphasized: “We are proud of Russia for the fact that it gave birth to communism, and not for the fact that Russian kvass is better than Munich beer.” The outstanding past of Russia, its great achievements in cultural, literary, spiritual development over the many centuries of their history they mean too little to him. Samoilov's cosmopolitan attitude led him to the point that he was unable to see either Russia or the best traditions of its people.
In one of his letters during the war years, Isakovsky bitterly informed Tvardovsky about an evening organized in Chistopol by the poets S. Kirsanov, B. Pasternak and other “classics.” “I was told,” he writes, “that the poets would read “early poems” at the evening. I should be presented as such. And somehow it didn’t immediately occur to me what was going on here. But the fact was that with “early poems” people tried to isolate themselves from modernity, from the war. I felt this especially acutely during the evening itself. The audience was also selected “suitably”. She applauded some very sophisticated poets, not at all because she understood what she read, but because what she read was not current, etc. But one way or another, I had to speak. And then I remembered with bitterness the joke you told about yourself. Namely: one girl asked her friend if she knew Tvardovsky’s poems? And she replied, “Why, I know,” “he’s the one who writes about clamps and reins.” So it was with me. I also write about “collars,” and I felt that here, among the “elegant words,” no one needed my clamps and shafts, that I spoke in vain. I went home extremely upset.”
How to evaluate this “coolness” with which some “classics” treated the gruelingly terrible struggle that our people waged, bleeding, with the enemy during the war? The fact is that in Soviet literature there were figures who adhered to cosmopolitan positions (when internationalism is deprived of patriotic feelings, it turns into cosmopolitanism), treated Russian writers with disdain, and did not show respect for their national feelings.
A. Andryushkin explained the enormous achievements of Russia during the Soviet period by the fact that in it “the international, universal side of socialism remained strong,” and “Soviet socialism itself ... rejected Russian traditionalism.” The conclusion is clear: there is nothing good in traditional forms Russian life. For liberals like E. Dobrenko, cosmopolitanism is “a sign of the social health of a nation, the strength of its democratic institutions, the real priority universal human values over narrow national ones." Today's liberals consider concern for the fate of the Russian nation, its physical and moral health, to be a manifestation of great-power chauvinism.
Patriotism means that a person, loving his homeland, can sacrifice his interests for the sake of its well-being, feels unity with his ancestors, feels personal responsibility for the fate of his people, deeply respects its shrines and traditions. When patriotism is deprived of its national origin, it acquires the features of cosmopolitanism. If there is no international component in patriotism, then it turns into extreme forms of nationalism and, ultimately, into chauvinism.
It is Russia that is the fundamental basis of our love. When this ceases to be the main thing, then the Political Views, and “party patriotism” in this case can ignore the interests of the Motherland. This is now being demonstrated by Russian liberals, who camouflage their defense of the class interests of the bourgeoisie and their betrayal with the slogans of freedom and democracy. They, speculating on anti-communism, sacrifice Russia and the interests of our people for their own benefit.
K. Simonov in his book “Through the Eyes of a Man of My Generation” correctly noted: “If you take our average intelligentsia, scientific intelligentsia, professors, doctors, they have not sufficiently cultivated a sense of Soviet patriotism. They have an unjustified admiration for foreign culture.” In 1978, Sholokhov wrote to L. Brezhnev: “The role of Russian culture in the historical spiritual process has been diminished, denying it progressiveness and creative originality, the enemies of socialism are thereby trying to discredit the Russian people as the main international force of the Soviet multinational state, to show them as spiritually weak, incapable of intellectual creativity... It is widely practiced to push through cinema, television and the press anti-Russian ideas that discredit our history and culture.”
He believed that “it becomes obvious that it is necessary to once again raise the question of more active protection of Russian national culture from anti-patriotic, anti-socialist forces, correct coverage of its history in the press, cinema and television, disclosure of its progressive character, historical role in the creation, strengthening and development of the Russian state." He was indignant that “Russians do not have the right to speak loudly about Russia, only in whispers.” These trends manifested themselves very clearly during the “perestroika” period.
Sholokhov was convinced that patriotism should be cultivated “from toddler age” so that a person would carry “love for the Motherland throughout his entire life.” His works are filled with passionate thoughts about the Russian land and its future. Love for his fatherland fueled his courage and honesty and helped him live according to the highest laws of conscience. After receiving Nobel Prize he said about his mood: “The prevailing feeling here is that I am - at least to some extent - contributing to the glorification of my Motherland and the party, in the ranks of which I have been for more than half of my life, and, of course, my native Soviet literature.” He wrote: “And, being a patriot of my powerful Motherland, I proudly say that I am also a patriot of my native Don region.” Russian literature instills in readers a love for their Motherland.
Disliked by Russia haters
The US National Security Council in Directive 20/1 set the task of undermining “the innate courage, endurance and patriotism of the Russian population” in order to make Russia weak politically, militarily and psychologically.
A. Sakharov argued that “a call for patriotism is already completely from the arsenal of official propaganda,” and “nothing disgusted him more than the awakening of Russian self-awareness!” They are strenuously trying to impose on us that “every Russian, as soon as he reveals himself to be a Russian patriot, is already an imperialist.” In the 90s, Komsomolskaya Pravda declared: “Patriotism today is an anachronism.” At the same time, Literaturnaya Gazeta reported that “patriotism has been reliably discredited.” Director O. Efremov admitted that actors “with a touch of patriotism” were not allowed into the Sovremennik theater. A. Ivanchenko proposed to remove “from circulation the most large bills– people, Russia, Motherland, patriotism.
M. Zolotonosov welcomed writers who do not use the terms “Russia”, “Motherland”, “people” in their work.
Changes in public opinion, in the mood of the people, a severe crisis of Westernizing ideas have led to the fact that recently the Russian government and its ideological spokesmen are forced to interpret patriotism in such a way that it is included in their ideological system. For example, patriotism, according to A. Kurchatkin, “in its hidden essence” is “a very selfish feeling”, which “has ceased to be associated with the concepts of “state” and “power”. And it is well known that for liberals the personal is higher than the public, the individual is higher than the collective.
For B. Berezovsky, patriotism means the priority of “the Motherland over the priority of any other state”: “Patriots are the politically most active part of people who are ready to defend the interests of their country. But when they say that patriots should put the interests of the country above their own, I categorically disagree. Without loving yourself, it is impossible to love your loved ones and such an abstraction as the Motherland.”
M. Efremov repeated similar thoughts: “To be honest, I don’t really understand what patriotism is. In my opinion, this is a dangerous abstraction.” Patriotism for liberals has become a “dangerous abstraction.” A. Prokhanov reasonably objected: “A person who is not ready to sacrifice his interests during a war, during a period of disaster, during a period of collapse, ceases to be a patriot... A person who loves the Motherland more than himself understands that he will inevitably die, and the Motherland will remain, the children will remain, the culture will remain, the people will remain... Such a person is a patriot.”
V. Zaitsev in the book “There was no land for us beyond the Volga. Notes of a Sniper” reported: “On his Komsomol card, Alexander Gryazev left a will to his son: “Not the patriot who talks a lot about the Motherland, but the one who is ready to give his life for it... In the name of the Motherland and yours, son, life, I am ready to do anything.” . Grow, my dear baby, learn. Love your homeland not with words, but with hard work.” Many hundreds of thousands of Soviet people voluntarily went to the front. Didn't they put the interests of their country above all else? They understood: if they did not defeat the enemy, their lives would be tragic under the heel of the invaders.
E. Bonner, in an interview with A. Karaulov on October 15, 1995, babbled: “There are two types of patriotism: the patriotism of defense is true, high, pure patriotism. This was our war in 1941–1943. And there is the patriotism of scoundrels.” And then she evaluates the behavior Soviet soldiers who liberated Germany from fascism: “After all, we behaved completely differently in that territory. We keep forgetting about the three million German bastards who were born after being raped... by our soldiers.” The fantasy of this lady is limitless and not limited by any moral standards.
Bondarev wrote about Bonner’s indignation at the “sexual bacchanalia” of our “soldiers on German territory at the end of the war”: “There is no particular reason to refute the absurd sensation of Mrs. Bonner if she had not immediately expressed that the Red Army had to stop the offensive in 1943 , don't cross state border. But we crossed the border and instantly became... “scoundrel patriots”, “invaders”, “rapists”. He explained to this “very humane lady”: if our troops had stopped at the border, “then German fascism, having recovered from defeats in Russia, perhaps would not have lost the war so crushingly. And then, God forbid, liberal-eloquent humanists of various directions would have to measure life not by the number of platforms shaken by chatter, but by suffering and torture behind barbed wire in global concentration camps and civilized crematoria, convenient for death.”
A new national holiday has been established in the United States: every year September 11 is celebrated as Patriot's Day. For an American, not being considered a patriot means losing a lot in the right to a prosperous life. For Russian liberals, it is attractive to vilify Russian patriotism. V. Prussakov, who left for the USA in 1973, noted: “I have traveled a lot, but nowhere have I seen such American patriots as in the USSR.” Now there are more of them. Betrayal of one's native land is common among liberals.
Some people seized on the words of L. Tolstoy “patriotism is slavery” and believed that they reveal the essence of patriotism and the attitude of the great writer towards it. But under the influence of a specific situation, he sometimes expressed paradoxical thoughts without giving them a general meaning. The strength of Tolstoy’s patriotic feeling was reflected during his participation in the defense of Sevastopol, in his work, the epic “War and Peace,” and in a number of his statements. Thus, Alexandra Tolstaya recalled: “There was a war with Japan. Lev Nikolaevich took our military defeats very close to his heart, and when the news of the surrender of Port Arthur arrived, he exclaimed: “We should have blown up the fortress! How could you give up!” In the essay “Sevastopol in December 1854,” speaking about the heroism, courage, and perseverance of our soldiers, he emphasized that the origins of this “are a feeling that is rarely manifested, bashful in Russian, but lies in the depths of everyone’s soul - love for the motherland.” No, L.N. is not suitable. Tolstoy as an ally of cosmopolitans.
The purpose of a number of textbooks on literature is to instill a negative attitude towards Russia into the minds of students and undermine the sense of patriotism. They reduce the importance of the works of Sholokhov, A. Tolstoy, Leonov, Isakovsky, and outstanding modern prose writers - Belov, Bondarev, Rasputin. Let's take the textbook by K.D. Gordovich "History" Russian literature XX century" (1997). It reflects a similar trend. Gordovich treats writers (for example, Yu. Bondarev) with suspicion and condemnation who seek to instill in readers a love for Russia. It is no coincidence that she “forgot” about Akhmatova’s poem, which clearly reflected her patriotic position: “I am not with those who abandoned the earth...”
In the textbook “History of Russian Literature of the 20th Century (20-90s)”, edited by Professor S. Kormilov, coverage of literary events is given from an anti-patriotic position. It praises Vladimov’s novel “The General and His Army”, Brodsky’s poem “On the Death of Zhukov”, etc. Kormilov presented A. Tolstoy as a writer “without unnecessary modesty”, he supposedly had unsuccessful endings, “his internal instability brought many defeats as an artist”, “the most independent people, like Akhmatova and Pasternak, treated him with hostility. In 1934 former count received a slap in the face from the mendicant Jew O. Mandelstam. M. Bulgakov made fun of him in the image of Fialkov (“Theatrical Novel”).”
Kormilov could also refer to E. Dobrenko, who freely manipulates the facts and claims that Tolstoy returned to his homeland primarily because he had a conflict “with creditors, from whom A. Tolstoy fled first from Paris and then from Berlin.” . Did Dobrenko read his story “Nikita’s Childhood”, filled with piercing longing for his lost homeland? If he read it and did not feel this melancholy, it was only because he himself did not care where to live - either in Odessa or in the USA. If only they paid more dollars.
Kormilov’s textbook omits the most important thing - the patriotism of A. Tolstoy, which was the basis and incentive for his social and literary activities. Realizing that after Civil War only the Soviet government defends national interests Russia, he came to his homeland and devoted all his magnificent talent to strengthening its well-being and power, which was especially clearly manifested during the Great Patriotic War.
Guardians of love for the Fatherland
In Russia there has long been a distrustful attitude towards the peasantry and its original culture. Trotsky and his followers viewed the Russian peasantry as something that was subject to radical alteration and destruction: it stood in the way of the world revolution, interfered with the triumph of the principles of that pseudo-internationalism, which does not take into account national characteristics of any people, with its desires and aspirations, with its life interests. In the Russian village are the origins of our national culture, our morality, and the fact that it was subjected to catastrophic devastation undermined their main foundations.
The ideologists of the Yeltsin-Putin regime see many of the troubles of our country in the bad character traits of Russian peasants. E. Konyushenko wrote: “It is very difficult for a peasant to be a patriot of an empire, a large, complex (socially, ethnically, geographically) country. The peasant’s experience is too limited by his yard, his land, his village, his small personal gain.” It is known about A. Konchalovsky that his “mother spoke English all her life”, that he was “ashamed to live in this country”, at the first opportunity he ran away from Russia, in his genes he “really felt something from the Germans”. He believed that in Russia only a strong state system “can restrain the private property comprador (?!) instincts characteristic of the peasant.” You have to really hate Russian peasants to manage to find such instincts in them.
IN AND. In 1920, Lenin cited the words of a Nizhny Novgorod peasant that “we, the peasants, are ready to starve, be cold, and bear obligations for three more years, but don’t sell Mother Russia for a concession.” He emphasized that “the patriotism of a person who would rather starve for three years than give Russia up to foreigners is real patriotism, without which we would not have lasted for three years.”
After a long conversation with a Tver collective farmer, A. Fadeev said: “Such people are a treasure for a writer. She is, one might say, an expressive people's point vision, folk morality. And generally speaking amazing people our peasants. L. Tolstoy felt this very well and showed it wonderfully in his works.
K. Simonov noted with condemnation that some writers wanted to “belittle what A. Tvardovsky had done and continued to do with his “Terkin.” And they differentiated between “universal” and “peasant”, “Russian” and “Soviet”. Moreover, “peasant” and “Russian” were given to “Torkin”, and “Soviet” and “universal” were presented as the dignity of other writers and other works.”
Cosmopolitans attacked Tvardovsky’s book “Motherland and Foreign Land” even more harshly, published in 1947 ( most of it was created during the war years). In it, he wrote about his small homeland: “Every kilometer of the road, every village, copse, river - all this is for a person who was born here and spent the first years of his youth, sacred with a special, bloody holiness.” He mourned seeing the terrible damage caused by the Nazis: “Russia, Russia the sufferer, what are they doing to you!” Admiring the Russian man, the writer connected his behavior with the imperishable experience of past battles for Russia: “It seems that all the unparalleled strength, vigor and endurance of the Russian warrior on the campaign and in battle have now appeared in the people tirelessly pursuing the enemy on the paths marked by the ancient glory of victories over invaders -foreigners."
Tvardovsky showed a dispossessed old man who had been in the north. Once on the occupied land, he began to fight the invaders, explaining the motives for his behavior: “It was its own, Russian, strict government. She was placed over me by the people, not by Germany.” His sons became respected people, and three of them defended their homeland. The secretary of the board of the Writers' Union, L. Subotsky, criticized Tvardovsky for his “idealistic portrayal” of the relationship between the “kulak and the Soviet regime,” not wanting to understand that during the war years, when the fate of the Motherland was being decided, the ability of Russians to put aside grievances against the authorities and devote everything to the cause clearly showed its strength defense of your country.
N. Atarov did not accept the deep things that came from distant centuries, which were reflected in the Russian character, he did not like National character in the people and paintings shown by Tvardovsky. He reproached the poet for the fact that “he depicted everything in his grandfather’s and great-grandfather’s traditions, imperishable, preserved from ancient days,” that the writer’s “beloved land” was “depicted as it could have been depicted in Nekrasov’s times.”
L. Levin found “peasant narrow-mindedness” not only in Tvardovsky, but also in other authors who “talked about defending the homeland and patriotism.” Remembering Simonov’s poem “Do you remember, Alyosha, the roads of the Smolensk region...”, in particular the words: “Still, the Motherland is not a city house where I lived on holiday,” he reasoned: “I read... these lines, and it immediately struck me: why is your homeland a countryside, not a city home? This is a limited idea that Russia is just Rus'.” Levin did not notice that these country roads were “traversed by grandfathers” and did not accept the deep origins of Russian patriotism.
Attacks on “Motherland and Foreign Land” show that cosmopolitans were disgusted by Russian patriotism associated with root traditions, and therefore Danin condemned the book for the fact that he did not see in it “not only the shadow of communist internationalism, but felt national limitations.” That discussion from the late 40s has been revived today. V. Ogryzko in Literary Russia (2012) wrote an article about V. Arkhipov, who defended A. Tvardovsky more than 60 years ago, under the “exotic” title “Attacks of an Idiot.” But the fact is that the then young front-line literary critic turned out to be the only speaker who unconditionally accepted the master’s new work. At a discussion at the Writers' Union, he said: “During the war, I suddenly felt that I was Russian. And this was when they assigned double security to the Russians, when they said: “We shoot the Russians, and we’ll wait for the others.” This is when I read in an article by Ilya Ehrenburg that the German bastard exchanged two unconquered Russian girls for one Estonian; then I felt that I was Russian. Tvardovsky also felt this, and he spoke about it, and this is not bad. The Germans saw the Russians as their main enemies, and naturally, the growing national momentum could not but affect “Vasily Tyorkin.” The answer was: “You systematically support everything reactionary.”
It turns out that to be Russian and to talk about this means to act impermissibly, to display retrograde positions?! And this discussion took place not in the USA, not in Israel, but in Moscow... Today, this blasphemy of almost forgotten cosmopolitans is being adopted by supporters of Ogryzko’s liberalism. The Trojan horse, speaking for liberal-comprador Russia, stinks, vigorously knocks - forward, backward, left, right - with its dollar-shod hooves, seeks to destroy the traditional values of Russian literature, its best writers, helping the anti-people regime to provide ideological support for the strategy of globalization, the politics of the world government.
Other political values of humanism include such social feelings and states as patriotism, national security, cosmopolitanism and international security. Humanism tends to view these values in unity and balance, so that none of them dominates the others.
Patriotism, i.e. love for the homeland, a feeling of special closeness to that people, which is the immediate bosom and sphere of a person’s existence, is natural and valuable, since it enriches it and ennobles many of a person’s social actions. Everyone is decent and man of sense wants to see his country prosperous, protected, strong, safe.
The concept of national security, strictly speaking, goes far beyond political value. National security also includes political, economic, legal, military, environmental, medical, ideological, moral, scientific and technical, information and cultural. There is no need to prove how important a decent lifestyle, a prosperous economy, a rule of law state, a military doctrine, an army and weapons adequate to world standards, a normal ecology, the health of the people, not contaminating the public consciousness with the ideas of racism, fascism and totalitarianism, high culture and the level of social and interpersonal morals, favorable conditions for the development of the humanities, natural sciences, technology and all other sciences, the flourishing of art and other types of human value-based creativity.
Patriotism and concern for national security are important not only in themselves as values of a humanistic worldview. It is important to recognize and cultivate them as best as possible, since they protect us from a sometimes subtle, but very dangerous slide into the spheres of nationalism, xenophobia (distrust of everything foreign) and isolationism. All these social phenomena contain the seeds of hatred, discord, fanaticism and, ultimately, they may well turn into genocide, including of one’s own people. When these seeds begin to sprout in public consciousness and psychology, it means that society is on the tracks leading to a national catastrophe.
Sometimes they talk about “healthy nationalism” or the need for a “national idea.” There is a big misconception and risk here. We can talk about healthy patriotism, and not nationalism, which in essence is a kind of epidemic. The speed and breadth of the spread of this epidemic sometimes tempts politicians. They use the "national idea" to mobilize popular forces, a quick solution to one or another social problem: political consolidation and achieving visible civil peace, solving economic or other real problems. Meanwhile, the genie of nationalism is easy to let out of the bottle, but too difficult to control or put back into it without being crushed and enslaved by it, especially in multi-ethnic and multi-religious societies.
Reliable counterweights to nationalism and balancers of patriotism are the values of cosmopolitanism and international security. In Russian history, especially its Soviet period, cosmopolitanism (contrary to the official slogan “proletarians of all countries, unite”) was under great suspicion. The cosmopolitan was credited with dislike for his homeland or even betrayal of it. The word “cosmopolitan” was a dirty word, “cosmopolitans” were persecuted and repressed.
Until the beginning of reforms in Russia, cosmopolitanism was considered as “a reactionary bourgeois ideology, preaching the rejection of national traditions and culture, patriotism, denying state and national sovereignty, serving the goals of states seeking world domination” (Soviet Encyclopedic Dictionary. M., 1985. P. 636).
Such a false and unkind interpretation of cosmopolitanism seems not only a misunderstanding, but also a mystery, since cosmopolitan ideas and feelings are deeply rooted in Russian culture and the psychology of the Russian citizen, and the official ideology of the USSR, Marxism-Leninism, professed internationalism and considered itself as an expression of the views of the most advanced part of humanity .
Many geniuses national culture: A. Pushkin, M. Lomonosov, F. Dostoevsky, Vl. Soloviev, L. Tolstoy and others - knew how to harmoniously combine a sense of patriotism with a sense of integrity and unity human race, involvement of the national, international, world. So, for example, Dostoevsky considered the Russian person to be an “all-man”, capable of understanding and loving any other national culture.
In its original historical meaning, cosmopolitanism (from the Greek kosmopolites - cosmopolitan, citizen of the world) was the desire to expand and enrich the sphere of human social and spiritual existence. And this desire, if it was not hypocritical, did not serve as a cover for the goals of imperialist domination and self-interest, was always a humanistic value. This concept itself was born in ancient Greece along with the first sprouts of the ideas of humanism.
“Cosmopolitanization” or, which is essentially the same thing, the globalization of social existence is an inevitable natural historical process. It reflects the positive needs for strengthening economic, cultural, scientific and other ties in the world community. Integration and global processes not only demonstrate the scientific, technical and cultural achievements of mankind, but also provide individuals with many new opportunities for self-improvement and the realization of their humanity. Of course, cosmopolitanism exists in a world of real international planetary contradictions, including in an atmosphere of competition among countries for influence and dominance. This geopolitical struggle may be a natural expression of the will to live of any social organism, but it is not connected with the idea of world citizenship, which is much more essential for humanity, and only exacerbates the need for the humanistic value of cosmopolitanism.
Social indicators of cosmopolitanism as a fully mature individual’s desire to expand the social and cultural space of his existence today have become the formation of global consciousness, global ethics, global economy and global information space, global politics, global social movements, one of which is civil or secular (secular, t. i.e. non-religious) humanism. Our time is the formation and activity of global social institutions, the most significant of which is the United Nations or the global information space, symbolized by the Internet.
Cosmopolitan consciousness includes the ability to love and respect not only the neighbor, but also the distant, the ability to realize that value is not only our self, another person, family and nation, but also humanity, which appears to superficial thinking as an abstraction, and can and should be seen as a concrete reality.
This process is somewhat analogous to the transition of our understanding of the Earth as a planet from theoretical and abstract to concrete and empirical. Previously, we only knew that the Earth is a cosmic body, but now, with the help of the achievements of space navigation, we can see our beautiful planet directly. Something similar should happen in the awareness of the reality of the world community. It seems that it is hardly possible to experience it as something holistic and real. But individual signs, signs of the life of humanity as a whole are already visible. We can distinguish them in the atmosphere of the UN General Assemblies, and in world news television programs, and in global information and communication systems, and in the activities of international humanitarian or peacekeeping missions.
Strengthening and cultivating love for distant and general realities is the main step towards what humanism calls world citizenship. Everyone should strive for such global citizenship, and, moreover, to be a citizen of the world to the full is an exceptional honor and responsibility. Most of the greatest humanists: A. Einstein, A. Schweitzer, L. Tolstoy, M. Gandhi, B. Russell, A. Sakharov and others were such citizens. Their feat consisted both in the fact that they expanded the boundaries of humanistic consciousness and showed us the true possibilities of humanity, and in the fact that they had the strength and courage to take responsibility for the fate of the world, for the fate of all humanity. They were able to rise to such a mature level of humanity at which the problems and concerns of humanity become personal problems and concerns.
Cosmopolitanism and international security are in the same close relationship as patriotism and national security. Cosmopolitanism is one of the internal humanistic motives for creating an international security system based on the sum of national security. This in turn creates the most favorable environment for cosmopolitanism as a humanistic value. At the same time, the connection between cosmopolitanism and international security, on the one hand, and patriotism and national security, on the other, is even more important.
The ideal is harmony and balance of these values both at the level of personal consciousness and at the level of public opinion. The most difficult thing here is not figuring out the priority of values: they do not compete here and should not compete with each other, but add up and multiply by each other.
It is important to correctly assess the obvious fact that the very objective course of history, its globalization leads to the dominance of global, cosmopolitan values, while specific gravity national, private and local social values tend to decline. The optimal solution to this problem is not artificial and xenophobic protectionism in the defense of national values, and certainly not the use of objective processes of cosmopolitanization by certain countries for cultural, economic and political expansion. Natural and organic processes of combining national and global are necessary.
There are no and cannot be monopolists in the world community. Any claim to represent global interests by one state or a group of individual states is a lie and a distortion of the very meaning of the world community, an attempt to undermine it from within.
One way or another, despite the huge differences in the cultural, technological, social and political development of countries and regions, the process of humanization of the world community is obvious. For example, collective global security systems developed under the auspices of the UN help strengthen the national security of each individual country. Systems of global economic, political and cultural cooperation strengthen and enrich national cultures and national economies. The formation of an international anti-terrorist coalition also expresses the need of the world community for consolidation in the face of global manifestations of evil.
Questions for the lecture
1. Why should national and planetary values be considered together?
2. What are the roots of national values and feelings?
3. Why did cosmopolitanism and its values arise?
4. What is the value of patriotism?
5. What is the positive of cosmopolitanism, why is its role in people’s lives increasing?
6. Does the modern world community need global institutions of governance, security, etc.?
Questions to Consider
1. Why are there a majority of nationalists and a minority of cosmopolitans?
2. Are there boundaries between national and planetary values?
3. What are the ways to resolve the contradictions between the globalization of society and human life and the traditional values of national culture and psychology?
When looking at our contemporary Russian reality, many “whys” arise. Is that why people register dozens of illegal migrants in their apartments? Why do conscripts avoid military service? Why are talented youth leaving the country? Why do traitors appear in foreign intelligence? Why do rich people move their capital abroad? The reason is that people lack patriotism. Now, finally, an understanding has begun to emerge in society that a lot depends on it, that it is impossible to do without it in state building.
What is patriotism? Patriotism(from the Greek patrís - homeland, fatherland) - a feeling of love for the homeland, readiness to serve it and protect it.
What is meant by fatherland, homeland, where does the Motherland begin? Some dictionaries say that the homeland is a historically owned to this people territory. However, the homeland is not just a territory; it is, after all, a broader, more capacious concept. This is the country where we were born and raised, received upbringing and education, where our parents live, where people close and dear to us live; where our ancestors lived and their graves are located, this is the people to which we belong, its history and culture. All this is our Fatherland. There is also the concept of a small homeland: this is the village, town, city where we were born and where we spent our childhood.
Love for the fatherland and one’s people is a universal phenomenon in the human race, and patriotism is natural and understandable to everyone to a normal person. We will not find a people in whose history there would not be high examples self-sacrifice and love for one’s people and fatherland. We find such examples in ancient history(the feat of the 300 Spartans), in the Holy Scriptures and the lives of the saints:
Joseph the Beautiful in Egypt does not forget his parents and relatives, and bequeaths in the future to transfer his relics to his homeland.
Prophet Moses asks for mercy on his people who have fallen into idolatry: “Forgive them their sin, and if not, then blot me out from Your book in which You have written” (Exodus 32:32).
Ap. Paul: “There is great sadness for me and constant torment in my heart: I would like to be excommunicated from Christ for my brothers, my relatives according to the flesh.”(Rom.9:2), - that is, the Israelites.
Of the Russian saints they show us an example of patriotism: the noble princes Alexander Nevsky, Georgy Vladimirsky, Vasilko of Rostov, Konstantin Yaroslavsky, Dmitry Donskoy, St. Sergius of Radonezh, Patriarch Ermogen, right. Fedor Ushakov.
St. Philaret of Moscow wrote the following words: “A bad citizen of the earthly fatherland cannot become a good citizen of the heavenly fatherland.”
Love for one's people has a special name - nationalism, and this word in itself does not have a negative connotation. Love for your people, their history, religious and cultural traditions, and the best representatives is an important part of patriotism. Healthy nationalism should not be confused with chauvinism, which asserts the idea of national superiority, exclusivity, and opposes the interests of one people to the interests of all other peoples. The word chauvinism owes its appearance to a character in a French theatrical play of the 19th century. Nicole Chauvin. In the play he is presented as a fanatical and at the same time a caricatured admirer of Napoleon and everything French.
Nationalism is also often confused with Nazism. Nazism is the ideology of Hitler’s Germany, so this word cannot be fully applied to the phenomena of modern life.
For the first time, Joan of Arc gave a simple and clear formula for national patriotism: this is the desire to be independent from foreigners in one’s own land and to have one’s own supreme head among oneself.
Cosmopolitanism,(cosmopolitan from Greek - citizen of the world), in contrast to patriotism, preaches love for all humanity, inspires equal love for people of all countries and peoples. He puts the interests of humanity above the interests of an individual nation.
Cosmopolitanism is presented as something very modern, as the latest achievement of human thought. However, it originated in the ancient world. Ancient philosophers, with the help of these ideas, wanted to overcome the fragmentation of the Greek city-states and unite their people. These ideas were shared by famous philosophers: Diogenes of Sinope, who was the first to use the word “cosmopolitan”, Socrates, and the Stoic Zeno. A representative of crude eudaimonism, Aristippus, in accordance with his philosophical concept, expressed his cosmopolitan views in the words: “where it is good, there is the fatherland.” The creation of the huge state of Alexander the Great was the reason further development cosmopolitan views.
During the Middle Ages, cosmopolitan ideas were formed in social groups, leading a nomadic lifestyle: among wandering knights, students, merchants, comedians, mercenary warriors. These ideas were supported by European thinkers of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Elements of cosmopolitanism were also present in communist ideology, aimed at building a classless society on a global scale.
A cosmopolitan considers himself a citizen of the whole world. The object of his love is not a specific “person,” “brother,” “neighbor,” but all of humanity as a whole. Or maybe it’s really good to love all of humanity? The fact is that “all humanity” is an abstract object with which concrete relationships are impossible, and a person cannot truly love an abstraction.
This is how Dostoevsky writes about love for all humanity in his novel The Brothers Karamazov:
“I love all of humanity so much!” exclaims the enthusiastic lady in a conversation with Elder Zosima. Then Zosima gives her the words of one doctor in response: “I, he says, love humanity, but I am amazed at myself: the more I love humanity in general, the less I love people in particular, that is, separately, as individuals. In my dreams, I often, he says, reached passionate thoughts about serving humanity and, perhaps, I would really go to the cross for people if it were suddenly somehow required, but meanwhile I am not able to live with anyone for two days one room, which I know from experience. He is a little close to me, and now his personality crushes my pride and restricts my freedom. One day I can hate even the best person: one because he takes a long time to eat at lunch, another because he has a runny nose and constantly blows his nose. I, he says, become an enemy of people, as soon as they touch me a little. But it always happened that the more I hated people in particular, the more ardent my love for humanity in general became.”
Cosmopolitanism has no basis either in the natural disposition of people, or in the Christian religion, or in historical experience. We know examples when individuals or groups of people (emigrants) left their homeland. They yearned for a foreign land, created communities of compatriots to preserve the national culture, spoke their native language with their families and dreamed of someday returning back. Assimilation has always been a painful process, and could only happen after several generations, when people were born and grew up who had never seen their former homeland in their lives. Let us remember the psalm “On the rivers of Babylon.” Jews returned to the Promised Land, Tatars returned to Crimea after deportation, Chechens returned to the Caucasus.
In the modern world there are strong trends towards the formation of a single planetary civilization within the framework of the Western globalization project. Therefore, cosmopolitanism as a doctrine today has again become in demand, it has been remembered and filled with new content. In the political sphere they talk about world government, in the religious sphere they talk about tolerance. Multinational companies and integration are increasing in the global economy. These trends are even more noticeable in the cultural sphere. IN different countries and on different continents people wear the same clothes (jeans, sneakers, T-shirts), watch the same hollywood movies, listen to the same music, use the same Teflon frying pans and electric kettles, play the same sports and computer games. Uniform standards are being applied everywhere. All this contributes to the standardization of consciousness. Of particular importance in this process is the worldwide computer network, access to which is already considered as a virtual analogue of world citizenship. Corresponds to the globalization project new type a person - a permanent nomadic migrant who has lost his traditional attachment to the country, community, family, who considers his homeland to be the place where he currently lives more comfortably. There has never been such a precedent in history that entire nations were called upon to abandon their homeland.
The globalization project is inextricably linked with the destruction of nation states; without this it cannot take place. A powerful weapon of such destruction is the flow of migrants, which break the traditional structure of society and a nationally oriented type of consciousness. . Moreover, national consciousness is degrading both among the indigenous population and among the migrants themselves. The ideology of cosmopolitanism is also dangerous for nation states because its followers are always ready to oppose the interests of their own country, since they do not consider their own national and state identity to be something important.
It would seem that patriotism divides countries and peoples, and cosmopolitanism seeks to unite them. What is better, to unite or to separate? It turns out that a definite answer cannot be given. What matters is on what basis this unification occurs. If based on virtue, then better connection, and if based on sin, then it is better to stay away from such a community. And another question arises: who will rule this united world? Probably those who are implementing the globalization project. Who is implementing this project?
The separate existence of different peoples is determined by the Providence of God. Peoples each have their own language, culture, individuality, their own special task in human history, and even each have their own Guardian Angel. It is as criminal to destroy this diversity as the diversity of tree species and animal species. Such an attempt would become resistance to the Divine world order.
Most likely, an attempt to destroy the diversity of cultures is utopian, because the culture of each people is inextricably linked with its life in specific historical and natural conditions. A black man cannot live in the tundra, or an Eskimo in South Africa: they have different clothes, different food, different body temperature settings, different skills, respectively different songs, habitual rhythms, movements, behavior. Much of this is already inherited. Can a citizen of the world really be able to live everywhere and feel equally good? Of course, he will be able to imagine himself as a citizen of the world, but in reality the Negro will live and feel good in Africa and in a loincloth, and the Eskimo in the tundra, in a dokha and high boots made of reindeer skin.
If interested forces are promoting some idea in society, then it is not enough to simply criticize it, you must be able to offer something in return. What positive idea can be opposed to the modern globalization project? The one that is spoken of in the kontakion of Pentecost - the union in the Christian Church.
We know from Holy Scripture, that the nations of the earth appeared by the will of God during the Babylonian pandemonium. The pandemonium for a moment united people in their atheistic plans, but ultimately led to the loss of a common language, so that people ceased to understand each other and, forgetting about the work they had begun, scattered throughout the heavens. On the contrary, in the book of the Acts of the Apostles we read about how the Holy Spirit who descended to people transformed them and united them internally. The New Testament Pentecost is the unity of people in faith and the grace of God, as a result of which people speaking different languages learned to understand each other. This is stated in the kontakion of Pentecost: “ Whenever the tongues of fire came down, dividing the tongues of the Most High: when the fiery tongues were distributed, we all called together to unite, and accordingly we glorified the All-Holy Spirit.”(note that the word “language s ki" is used in three different senses in this short chant). In the New Testament, the Lord gave the people of the planet the opportunity to reunite through the Church, but humanity, unfortunately, does not take advantage of this opportunity.
In current life, the Church calls on large and small nations to respect each other, try to live in peace and cooperation, while carefully preserving their cultural identity. An example of such peaceful coexistence was Russian empire. Not a single small nation disappeared, but everyone, even the most undeveloped and small in number, retained their national culture and historical territory, which cannot be said about the American Indians, Australian aborigines, and Asia Minor Greeks. But by our time at least some traces have remained of them, and information about many, many other disappeared ethnic groups can only be found in historical documents.
Patriotism is certainly not a genetic feeling, but has its economic and cultural roots. If we talk about the moral side of patriotism, it is very contradictory. Patriotism in many cases is not at all a noble and/or ethical model.
Patriotism in different social models
Probably the first manifestation of patriotism can be considered patriotism: loyalty to one’s tribe and its leader V primitive society . It’s a completely pragmatic feeling that if the last mammoth calf remains in the area, summer is far away and only one tribe out of four will survive. Namely, one that, completely subordinate to the leader, will kill active competitors in an organized manner and push aside passive ones. And he will overwhelm and eat the baby mammoth, having danced a collective ritual dance before this, not paying attention to the hungry and envious glances of members of other tribes hidden in the forest.
A patriotically minded tribe will survive, but a tribe that has not realized itself as a single and self-valued community, and has failed to identify a leader from among its number and obey him, will die of hunger. In this situation, partisanship is nothing more than group egoism.
In a slave society, a patriot, caring about the prosperity and progress of his country, goes to another country, captures people there and brings them home - as slaves. In this case, patriotism is also an ethically controversial feeling.
Patriotism under feudalism- this is the vassal's loyalty to his overlord. The king/king/shah uses all his subjects as his slaves (with some internal hierarchy and restrictions). The patriot takes an oath of allegiance to the monarch and, without sparing his belly, helps to suppress and rob his compatriots and conquer neighboring territories with additional resources, including human resources.
For this he receives additional benefits. The feeling of patriotism helps him justify his cruelty and suppress other feelings that are more commendable from the point of view of current morality, such as philanthropy, for example.
Under capitalism the concept of patriotism allows you not to suffer from conscience by organizing unequal exchange of goods with other countries. Or even participating in a war for other people's natural resources.
On the other hand, patriotism under capitalism contributes to the development of the country. A wealthy and free citizen can build himself a beautiful house and pave the path in front of it. But in order for life to be comfortable, it is also necessary to equip all the roads in the city and district.
Not everyone can buy a city for themselves. It’s easier to be happy about the overall economic growth of the country, so that it is pleasant and convenient to be not only in your home, but also outside it.
In addition, the issue of personal safety arises. Poverty breeds envy and crime. Therefore, it is beneficial to ensure that the people's well-being is sufficient. Moreover we're talking about specifically about one’s own people, and not about someone else’s.
Fundamental communism\socialism rejected the idea of patriotism as bourgeois and reactionary. IN AND. Lenin attacked him with the full force of his charisma right during the world war, saying that every worker should wish for the defeat of his country. The idea was to create a global communist society.
At the same time, the classification of people based on belonging to a class, rather than to a country, was more significant. Therefore, international class solidarity had to replace love for the Motherland. However, it turned out that without patriotism it is difficult to mobilize the people not to wage a total defensive war. And patriotism was returned, and on an exaggerated, cyclopean scale.