Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
It all depends on the original terminology. The meanings of words change, they are forgotten, and sometimes an erroneous interpretation overcomes the correct one and replaces it.
Initially, internationalism meant the rejection of one's own nation in favor of a different identification. The Communists, who adopted internationalism, believed that class was the most important thing and prevailed over origin and culture.
Simply put: the supporters of internationalism believed that the proletarians of all countries would unite and throw off the bourgeois power. When it became obvious that nothing would work out, internationalism was understood as “friendship of peoples”. That is, there are nations and citizenship, but they are not needed.
Initially, cosmopolitanism appeared in Ancient Greece, when each city (polis) was a separate state. The cosmopolitans of that time believed that this was somehow fat, and it would be necessary to expand political entities. And anyway, we're all human.
Modern cosmopolitanism has rejected the idea of state enlargement, but continues to deny any sociopolitical identification of people at all. In cosmopolitanism, there are no nationalities or citizenship. That is, they are there, but they are not needed.
As can be seen, internationalism and cosmopolitanism have become indistinguishable over time.
An internationalist recognizes the existence of nations, but does not distinguish between them, for him all nations are equal and valuable. He is for the friendship of peoples. The cosmopolitan denies the very concept of nation and people, considering all people equal and the same. The same attitude to citizenship. Borders are an artificial phenomenon that should disappear along with nation states. We are children of the Earth, we are children of the world.
The difference is the simplest, but extremely significant. If an internationalist denies the role of the nation in the analysis of this or that phenomenon, in the assessment of a person and his actions. Completely different circumstances and characteristics are essential for it. Then the cosmopolitan denies statehood and the borders that distinguish it. This is a person outside of the Homeland, the whole world. The opinion of an internationalist can be argued, it is evidence-based. The position of the cosmopolitan is absolutely artificial from beginning to end, in everything. Naldo should be able to separate science and opportunistic pop music.
An internationalist is a Soviet, Marxist cosmopolitan, and a cosmopolitan is a non-Soviet and non-Marxist cosmopolitan. Marxism also said that borders would be erased and the state would gradually die out.
They differ in the following ways:
1. A cosmopolitan is a supporter of the bourgeois idea of world citizenship, a world community of developed bourgeois nations. At the same time, the cosmopolitan claims that there is a certain extra-national and supranational world culture and world values, to which all people should belong without exception. For a cosmopolitan, nations and peoples, their national traditions and cultures are either a passed stage or unnecessary garbage that only hinders the “developed enlightened consciousness”. In his opinion, the future belongs to a global elite (highly intelligent) culture. An example of what is cosmopolitan is the supporters of the ” Castalese Brotherhood “in the work of G. Hesse”The Game of Beads”. Another example is a modern Western intellectual in the Russian Federation, who is often well-off and talks about “universal values” and “world culture”.
2. An internationalist is a supporter of the left-wing ideology, equality and equality of all nations and peoples, the future ideal of an internationalist is either the world community of socialist nations or planetary communism. In any case, for an internationalist, the development of world culture is possible only if national cultures are developed; for him, the world does not negate the national, and the national does not exist without the world. In the case of planetary communism, the internationalist puts forward the idea that the world culture of planetary communism will be a cultural polyphony of individual cultures that will be appropriated by all of humanity as a whole.