Stalin's definition of a nation and social reality: nations, peoples, regional civilizations. Stalin's definition of the nation “Theory of the nation” I

An important contribution by I.V. Stalin added his article to the collection of Marxist-Leninist teachings, written in Vienna in January 1913. In it, Comrade. Stalin gave his own, which became classic, definition of "NATION". This Stalinist definition occupies one of the central places in the conceptual apparatus of the KOB and is contrasted by its authors with the definition of “nation” given by the “founder of Zionism” Theodor Herzl, and therefore is of significant conceptual interest to us.

It is also mentioned in the work of the VP of the USSR “The Sin of Judas of the 20th Congress” that we are considering (in note No. 149):

« With the publication of “Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR,” the owners of Freemasonry realized that I.V. Stalin is not a Masonic agent in the Bolshevik party, but a real Bolshevik, who caused irreparable damage to the Marxist project of eliminating capitalism and replacing it with international Nazi fascism in the economic forms of socialism in on a global scale. But it was too late to take any action to save Marxism.

Note 149:
In addition, they have to I.V. Stalin has another complaint due to the fact that back in 1913 he defined the term “nation”:

“A nation is a historically established, stable community of people that arose on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and mental makeup, manifested in a common culture. (...) Only the presence of all the signs taken together gives us a nation” (I.V. Stalin, “Marxism and national question”, Works, vol. 2., 1946, pp. 296, 297).

Diaspora Jews—the main bearers of the biblical project of enslaving everyone—do not satisfy this definition of a nation. And although they are certainly a historically established stable community of people, this community, in its characteristic features, represents mafia masquerading as a nation. Main sign mafia - the attitude of its members towards other people, based on the identification of their belonging to their mafia: one of their own is a “bro”, a stranger is a “sucker”, i.e. object of influence and exploitation.

Actually, the same signs of a nation that I.V. Stalin gives in his definition are given in the modern school textbook “Introduction to Social Science” for grades 8-9 of general education institutions, edited by L.N. Bogolyubov, published by the publishing house “Prosveshcheniye” in 2003. See: the historical nature of the formation of nations (“Man and Society”, p. 316, paragraph 2), language (ibid., p. 316, paragraph 3), community of territory and economic coherence (ibid., p. 316, paragraph 4), psychological unity in the continuity of generations and common culture.

Stalin's definition of a nation takes the Jewish question out of the realm of interethnic relations, which I.V. Many cannot forgive Stalin: i.e. This is a “national-diaspora” relationship.»

It is easy to see that the quoted fragment contains a serious contradiction, even several.

On the one side, “the owners of Freemasonry have serious claims against Joseph Vissarionovich” for his definition of “nation”, since he thus removed the “Jewish question” from the field of interethnic relations.” On the other hand, it is not clear why the publication of the work “Marxism and the National Question” in 1913 did not break off the Masonic political career Stalin, but, on the contrary, made him a MASTER OF REVOLUTION?

On the one hand, Stalin, with his definition, “brought the Jewish question out of the realm of interethnic relations” and exposed Jewry as a MAFIA. On the other hand, it is known that it was thanks to the efforts of the USSR and Stalin personally in 1947-1948. The “Jewish question” was precisely introduced into the field of “interethnic relations” by UN Resolution No. 181 on the creation of the State of Israel. So every Israeli schoolchild knew the Soviet representative to the UN, Andrei Andreevich Gromyko, at that time, and he was considered in Israel almost the “father of the nation.”

Again, it is not clear: if the world behind the scenes (the masters of Freemasonry) still has such a grudge against Joseph Vissarionovich for his scientific contribution to the development of the problem of nationalities, then why its definition still appears in Masonic school textbooks(edited by academician L.N. Bogolyubov, criticized by Predictors)? Perhaps this definition is so classically coined that the Masons cannot develop another, alternative definition that is more “satisfactory” for them ideologically?

All these questions are left unanswered by respected Predictors. I believe that they are serious enough to make sincere supporters of the COB think about the true content of the concept “NATION”: how true is its Stalinist definition?

So, “The sin of Judas of the 20th Congress”, Stalin’s definition of “nation”, "Marxism and the National Question"(1913).

This work in itself is quite interesting. Firstly, Joseph Vissarionovich, who had already tried many party nicknames before, signed it with a pseudonym for the first time "TO. Stalin"(the letter “K” is all that remains of “Koba”), so it was from this article that the official birth took place STALIN as a politician...

Secondly, the time and place of its writing is pre-war Vienna, in which at that moment, by a curious coincidence (by chance?), all the major political figures of the 20th century gathered together: Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Hitler. Trotsky periodically traveled from Vienna to Belgrade, where he was accredited as a “war correspondent” from the newspaper Kyiv Mysl. The first Balkan War was already underway, which became the prologue to the world massacre of 1914-1918. (" No one can say that the Balkan War is the end and not the beginning of complications." - Stalin)

Hitler, who was shirking mobilization, soon moved to the capital of European occultism, Munich, and Vladimir Ilyich moved there after him. Of course, it is not so easy to keep track of the movements of the traveling circus of “professional revolutionaries,” but based on the sources I have, “by a powerful, instant instrument of Providence,” all big four was assembled at the beginning of 1913 in Vienna. (If anyone has more accurate data, I would be grateful for clarification.)

Direct work on the article, apparently, began even earlier - in November and December 1912, Stalin met with Lenin twice in Krakow “at meetings of the Central Committee with party workers” and, undoubtedly, discussed his work plan with him. Here is what was said about this in Stalin’s lifetime (1952) biography:

« Lenin and Stalin developed a Marxist program on the national question. In my work Stalin gave the Marxist theory of the nation, formulated the foundations of the Bolshevik approach to resolving the national question (the requirement to consider national question as part general issue about the revolution and in inextricable connection with the entire international situation of the era of imperialism), substantiated the Bolshevik principle of international unity of workers.»

Thus, the Stalinist definition of “NATION” that interests us is strictly Marxist and purely programmatic, it does not contain any ad-libbing - the more interesting it will be for us to understand it meaningfully.

But first, a few more words about the work “Marxism and the National Question” itself.

I studied it quite carefully and can immediately report my general impression - this work was without any doubt “Judas’ sin” of Stalin himself in relation to Russia, without which his further Masonic career as one of the navigators of the “Russian Revolution” would have been impossible. As you can see, here my opinion is quite at odds with the assessment of Predictors, who overly idealize this scientific Marxist work.

Why did I get such an impression from studying the article? Stalin knew very well that there was no “oppression of national minorities” (anything comparable to the colonialist policy Western countries) did not exist in the Russian Empire. The Predictors themselves have repeatedly written about this specific feature of Russian civilization; there is no need to prove it or illustrate it with examples. And Stalin himself, in his article in several places, seemed reluctantly forced to admit this indisputable fact:

« On the other hand, if, for example, there is no serious anti-Russian nationalism in Georgia, then this is, first of all, because there are no Russian landowners or Russian big bourgeoisie who could provide food for such nationalism among the masses. In Georgia there is anti-Armenian nationalism, but this is because there is still an Armenian big bourgeoisie there, which, beating the small, not yet strong Georgian bourgeoisie, pushes the latter towards anti-Armenian nationalism.»

By 1913, Stalin could not help but know that if there was any oppressed people in Russia, it was the Russians themselves. He could hardly fail to understand that the attitude of Great Russia towards the outskirts fundamentally different from the situation in Austria-Hungary, in which the national question was indeed extremely acute. And at the same time, knowing this, he writes the following in his article:

« Restrictions on freedom of movement, restriction of language, restrictions on voting rights, reduction of schools, religious restrictions, etc. are pouring down on the head of the “competitor”. Of course, such measures pursue not only the interests of the bourgeois classes of the commanding nation, but also the specifically, so to speak, caste goals of the ruling bureaucracy. But from the point of view of results this is completely indifferent: the bourgeois classes and the bureaucracy go hand in hand in this case - it doesn’t matter whether we are talking about Austria-Hungary or Russia. »

The absurdity of this statement was all too obvious. After just a few pages, Stalin himself is forced to admit this:

« Meanwhile, Austria and Russia present completely different conditions....

Finally, Russia and Austria face completely different immediate tasks, which is why the method of solving the national question is dictated by a different one. ...

Not so in Russia. In Russia, firstly, “thank God, there is no parliament.” Secondly - and this is the main thing - The axis of political life in Russia is not the national question, but the agrarian one.. »

Such glaring inconsistency of presentation (illogicality) clearly reveals the author’s bias. The “remarkable Georgian” (as Lenin called Stalin), on the advice of his party comrades, even decided to speak out in defense of “oppressed Finland”:

« In Finland there has long been a Sejm, which also tries to protect the Finnish nationality from “attacks”, but how much can it do in this direction - everyone can see it.»

The Finns themselves, as is known, at the first opportunity preferred to sneak away from the caring Social Democratic tutelage.

Comrade’s constant curtsies make an extremely repulsive impression. Stalin addressed to the birthplace of the Global Predictor - Switzerland, whose Masonic lodges sheltered in those years many homeless “petrels of the revolution” who were preparing a bloody coup in Russia. I counted four such scrapings at once, thoroughly imbued with the rotten spirit of liberalism. In such cases, Predictors like to quote F. Tyutchev: “the more liberal, the more vulgar they are”. To surpass in liberality the following curtseys of comrade. Stalin will probably not be easy for us:

« The final fall of the national movement is possible only with the fall of the bourgeoisie. Only in the kingdom of socialism can complete peace be established. But to bring the national struggle to a minimum, to undermine it at its roots, to make it as harmless as possible for the proletariat is possible within the framework of capitalism. This is evidenced at least examples of Switzerland and America. To do this, it is necessary to democratize the country and give nations the opportunity to develop freely.»

Switzerland and America are comrade’s role models. Stalin! What incredible vulgarity! (Tyutchev) Further - more. The traditional blood libel against Russia begins - it is used myth of pogroms:

« The point, obviously, is not in “institutions,” but in the general order in the country. If there is no democratization in the country, there are no guarantees of “complete freedom of cultural development” for nationalities. It is safe to say that the more democratic the country, the fewer “attacks” on the “freedom of nationalities”, the more guarantees there are against “attacks”.
Russia is a semi-Asian country, and therefore the policy of “assassinations” there often takes the crudest forms, forms of pogrom. Needless to say, “guarantees” have been reduced to the absolute minimum in Russia.»

We will immediately return to the topic of “pogroms,” but let’s see who Comrade. Is Stalin making an example of Russia this time?

« Germany is already Europe with more or less political freedom. It is not surprising that the policy of “assassination” never takes the form of a pogrom there.

In France, of course, there are even more “guarantees”, since France is more democratic than Germany.

We're not talking about Switzerland anymore, where, thanks to its high, albeit bourgeois, democracy, nationalities live freely - it doesn’t matter whether they represent a minority or a majority.”

It's hard to read these lines. We, perhaps, can only be glad that Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev did not live to see the writing of Stalin’s article on the national question. Nevertheless, comrade. Stalin doesn’t stop there - his nods to the Global Predictor continue:

« Well, what about in the future democratic system? Won't there be a need for special " cultural institutions, guaranteeing" etc.? What is the situation in this regard, for example, in democratic Switzerland? Are there special cultural institutions there, like Springer’s “national council”? They are not there. But do not the cultural interests of, for example, the Italians, who form a minority there, suffer as a result? I can't hear anything. Yes it is clear: democracy in Switzerland makes unnecessary any special cultural “institutions” that supposedly “guarantee” and so on.»

We should perhaps dwell on the topic of pogroms in more detail. In his article, Stalin not only supports the traditional blood libel against Russia of the thoroughly deceitful Western press, but also states that "pogroms"(by default perceived by readers as “Jewish pogroms”) were organized from above, planned in Russia:

« But the policy of repression does not stop there. It often moves from a “system” of oppression to a “system” of pitting nations against each other, to the "system" of massacres and pogroms. Of course, the latter is not possible everywhere and not always, but where it is possible - in the absence of basic freedoms - there it often assumes terrifying proportions, threatening to drown the cause of worker unity in blood and tears. The Caucasus and southern Russia provide many examples. “Divide and conquer” - this is the goal of the policy of incitement.»

These are completely false accusations, and three clarifications need to be made here.

Firstly, there have almost never been pogroms in the central provinces of Russia. I don't know of any significant cases.

Secondly, those clashes that actually took place in the Southern or Western regions, that is, on the outskirts of the country (Little Russia, Bessarabia, the Caucasus, Belarus) - these so-called “pogroms”, as a rule, were in the nature of beatings of the local population by Jewish militants and only in exceptional cases, as a forced response of despair to the horrific Jewish terror, did individual acts of self-defense take place, which were immediately inflated by the international Jewish press to the level of a universal event. There are many facts of this kind that are stunning in their cynicism, and I am ready to cite them if at least some interest in this topic is shown.

Thirdly, there can be no talk of any “organization from above” of such clashes. On the contrary, one can note the often negligent and conniving attitude on the part of officials towards the terrorist and pogrom antics of Jewish thugs. And after February revolution In 1917, already by the Provisional Government, and earlier, appropriate investigations were undertaken for traces of the “organization of pogroms,” but, naturally, nothing was discovered.

As an example, I will give an excerpt from a report on the Odessa “pogrom” in October 1905 (with big amount victims on both sides), made hot on the heels of a representative of the Jewish organization “Poalei Zion”. This report was published as a separate pamphlet in Paris in 1906:

« I went to Odessa precisely to find a purely provocative pogrom, but - alas! - didn’t find it... The fairy tale about hooligans... was invented by weak-minded Jewish talkers who are afraid to face the truth, and cunning liberals who would like to get rid of a terrible issue with a cheap resolution...»

Why did Stalin resort to such blatant lies in his policy article on the national question? How can we explain it to ourselves? "Sin of Judas" in relation to his own Fatherland, which raised him and gave him a good spiritual (Orthodox) education? (Let me remind you - 6 years at the Gori theological school and 4 years at the Tiflis Orthodox Seminary.)

There are different possible explanations here. The version of deliberate sabotage on the part of comrade. I don’t even want to raise Stalin in order to work off the Swiss and American pieces of silver. Rather, in this case we can talk about deeply confused young man, who read Marxist literature extremely destructive for the young and ardent mind and succumbed to the negative influence of the aggressive lumpen environment surrounding him, imbued with pathological hatred of everything traditionally Russian and Christian.

Could Comrade Stalin, at 33 years old, has any clear understanding of the national question? Of course he couldn't. For this, he had neither the necessary life experience, nor the appropriate education, nor the conditions for concentrated mental work. How much could he think up and compose in a Vienna cafe with Judas Trotsky hanging over one ear, Ilyich muttering in the other ear and, perhaps, under the searching gaze of a young and capable Austrian watercolor artist, the future Fuhrer of the German nation? I think that there is nothing particularly deep Comrade. Stalin could not have come up with such ideas in such conditions.

It is not surprising that in theoretical terms, the work “Marxism and the National Question” was produced by Comrade. Stalin is quite weak. We can now begin to analyze his theoretical miscalculations.

Nations, diasporas, individuals, multinational culture- multinational society

Stalin's definition of the term “nation”

The definition that has become almost generally accepted in the science of the USSR and the post-Soviet Russian Federation nation as a social phenomenon gave by I.V. Stalin in his work “Marxism and the National Question”. Let us present in full section I of the named work, entitled “Nation”, and not just the formulation of Stalin’s definition of this term, since the formulation represents the result - captured in the text-dialectical procedure of cognition: asking questions and finding answers to them in real life , and everyone needs to master dialectics in order to become free.

“What is a nation?

A nation is, first of all, a community, a certain community of people.

This community is neither racial nor tribal. The current Italian nation was formed from Romans, Germans, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, etc. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Germans, etc. The same must be said about the British, Germans and others, who formed into a nation from people of different races and tribes.

So, a nation is not racial or tribal, but historically established community of people.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that the great states of Cyrus or Alexander could not be called nations, although they were formed historically, formed from different tribes and races. These were not nations, but random and loosely connected conglomerates of groups that disintegrated and united depending on the successes or defeats of one or another conqueror.

So, a nation is not an accidental or ephemeral conglomerate, but stable community of people.

But not every stable community creates a nation. Austria and Russia are also stable communities, however, no one calls them nations. How does a national community differ from a state community? Incidentally, the fact that a national community is unthinkable without a common language, while a common language is not necessary for a state. The Czech nation in Austria and the Polish nation in Russia would be impossible without a common language for each of them, while the integrity of Russia and Austria is not hindered by the existence of a number of languages ​​within them. We are, of course, talking about colloquial languages, and not about official clerical ones.

So - community of language as one of characteristic features nation.

This, of course, does not mean that different nations always and everywhere speak different languages or all speaking the same language necessarily constitute one nation. A common language for every nation, but not necessarily different languages ​​for different nations! There is no nation that speaks different languages ​​at once, but this does not mean that there cannot be two nations speaking the same language! The British and North Americans speak the same language, and yet they do not constitute one nation. The same must be said about the Norwegians and Danes, the English and the Irish.

But why, for example, do the British and North Americans not form one nation, despite their common language?

First of all, because they do not live together, but in different territories. A nation is formed only as a result of long-term and regular communication, as a result of people living together from generation to generation. And long-term life together is impossible without a common territory. The British and Americans formerly inhabited one territory, England, and constituted one nation. Then one part of the English moved from England to a new territory, to America, and here, on the new territory, over time, formed a new North American nation. Different territories led to the formation of different nations.

So, community of territory, as one of the characteristic features of the nation.

But that is not all. Community of territory in itself does not give rise to a nation. This requires, in addition, an internal economic connection that unites individual parts of the nation into one whole. There is no such connection between England and North America, and therefore they constitute two different nations. But the North Americans themselves would not deserve the name of a nation if the individual corners of North America were not interconnected into an economic whole thanks to the division of labor between them, the development of communications, etc.

Take the Georgians, for example. Georgians of pre-reform times lived on a common territory and spoke the same language, however, they did not, strictly speaking, constitute one nation, for they, divided into a number of principalities separated from each other, could not live a common economic life, for centuries they lived among themselves wars and ruined each other, pitting the Persians and Turks against each other. The ephemeral and random unification of the principalities, which sometimes some lucky king managed to carry out, at best captured only the superficial administrative sphere, quickly breaking down due to the whims of the princes and the indifference of the peasants. Yes, it could not have been otherwise given the economic fragmentation of Georgia... Georgia, as a nation, appeared only in the second half of the 19th century, when the fall of serfdom and the growth of the country’s economic life, the development of communications and the emergence of capitalism established a division of labor between the regions of Georgia and completely undermined the economic isolation principalities and tied them into one.

The same must be said about other nations that went through the stage of feudalism and developed capitalism.

So, community of economic life, economic connectivity, as one of characteristic features nation.

But that's not all. In addition to all that has been said, one must also take into account the peculiarities of the spiritual appearance of the people united in a nation. Nations differ from each other not only in their living conditions, but also in their spiritual appearance, expressed in the characteristics of their national culture. If monolingual England, North America and Ireland nevertheless constitute three different nations, then the peculiar mental makeup that has developed in them from generation to generation as a result of unequal conditions of existence plays no small role in this.

Of course, the mental makeup itself, or - as it is otherwise called - “national character”, is something elusive for the observer, but since it is expressed in the uniqueness of the culture, the common nation, it is perceptible and cannot be ignored.

Needless to say, “national character” does not represent something given once and for all, but changes along with living conditions, but since it exists in every this moment, - he puts his stamp on the face of the nation.

So, community of mentality, affecting the community of culture, as one of the characteristic features of the nation.

Thus, we have exhausted all the signs of a nation.

A nation is a historically established stable community of people that arose on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and mental makeup, manifested in a common culture.

At the same time, it is self-evident that a nation, like any historical phenomenon, is subject to the law of change, has its own history, beginning and end.

It must be emphasized that none of these characteristics, taken separately, is sufficient to define a nation. Moreover: the absence of at least one of these signs is enough for a nation to cease to be a nation.

It is possible to imagine people with a common “national character” and yet it cannot be said that they constitute one nation if they are economically separated, live in different territories, speak different languages, etc. These are, for example, Russian, Galician, American, Georgian and mountain Jews, not constituting, in our opinion, a single nation.

One can imagine people with a common territory and economic life, and yet they will not form one nation without a common language and “national character.” Such are, for example, the Germans and Latvians in the Baltic region.

Finally, Norwegians and Danes speak the same language, but they do not constitute one nation due to the absence of other characteristics.

For a long time, the topic of nationalism has been constantly discussed in society, but there is no clear assessment of this phenomenon and this is primarily due to a lack of understanding of what it is. Therefore, we set out to understand this issue, as well as to identify manipulation technologies in this complex topic.

Stalin's definition of a nation - what happened then?

Before understanding the answer to the question, what is nationalism, we must understand, first of all, what a nation is and can every community of people be called a nation?

The definition of a nation as a social phenomenon, which has become almost generally accepted in the science of the USSR and post-Soviet science, was given by I.V. Stalin in his work “Marxism and the National Question”.

« A nation is a historically established stable community of people that arose on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and mental makeup, manifested in a common culture.

Only the presence of all the signs taken together gives us a nation».

I.V. Stalin

Consider Stalin's quote about his own people, from which he came.

“Take the Georgians, for example. Georgians of pre-reform times lived on a common territory and spoke the same language, however, they did not, strictly speaking, constitute one nation, for they, divided into a number of principalities separated from each other, could not live a common economic life, for centuries they lived among themselves wars and ruined each other, pitting the Persians and Turks against each other.

The ephemeral and random unification of the principalities, which sometimes some lucky king managed to carry out, at best captured only the superficial administrative sphere, quickly breaking down due to the whims of the princes and the indifference of the peasants. D

and it could not have been otherwise given the economic fragmentation of Georgia... Georgia, as a nation, appeared only in the second half of the 19th century, when the fall of serfdom and the growth of the country's economic life, the development of communications and the emergence of capitalism established the division of labor between the regions of Georgia and completely undermined the economic isolation principalities and tied them into one.

The same must be said about other nations that went through the stage of feudalism and developed capitalism.”

As we see, Stalin clearly indicated that the absence of at least one sign, in this case, general economic life, does not allow us to talk about the existence of a nation.

Drawing parallels with ancient times, we see that it was not necessary to talk about the separate economic structure of Belarus and Ukraine, as well as Georgia, in distant times, since the map was constantly redrawn and the prerequisites for the emergence of a nation appeared only in the times Russian Empire, when it was, the normal functioning of the economy was ensured without wars tearing apart the territory of the state.

In defining a nation, Joseph Stalin relied on the global historical process, for which reason his definition, unlike many other definitions, is not declarative, but describes as fully as possible all aspects of the life of a nation based on specific examples. We also recommend reading the full article by I.V. Stalin.

Nevertheless, over the past years, science has moved forward, for which reason there are a number of issues not considered in the work of I.V. Stalin, namely: what is culture and national cultures; interaction between nations and diasporas; issues of self-government of nations and diasporas; diasporas who have lost the region of formation of the nation that gave birth to them; the formation of a universal human culture, which will integrate multinational humanity; the biological basis of national cultures, the genetic core of the nation and biological differences in general; nation and civilization; egregorial processes and noosphere in the life of mankind.

As we can see, the range of issues is quite wide and it is almost impossible to consider it in one article, so we will try to touch on the most important aspects.

The definition of a nation as a social, historically determined phenomenon, given by I.V. Stalin, distinguishes a nation from a people as a social organism that passes through history throughout various shapes organizing the life of a culturally unique (national) society in a particular regional civilization.

This difference between the phenomena “nation” and “people” is also visible in the text of the work, in particular, when in the above fragment I.V. Stalin writes about the Georgians as a people who, in a certain period of their history, feudal fragmentation did not allow to unite into a nation in in the sense as this term was defined by I.V. Stalin.

But I.V. Stalin does not give a definition of how a nation differs from a tribe or people, as a result of which nation, people, ethnicity, even in the scientific lexicon, are perceived as synonyms - almost complete equivalents, not to mention the everyday understanding of these words in wide sections of society

The lack of adequate coverage of the above-mentioned problems by the sociological science of the USSR is one of the reasons why the process of formation of a new historical community, called the “Soviet people,” was interrupted, and national conflicts played a significant role in the deliberate destruction of the USSR by foreign policy forces. And this is one of the threats to the territorial integrity of post-Soviet states and the well-being of the peoples inhabiting them.

Stalin's definition of a nation today

So, a lot of time has passed since Stalin gave his definition of a nation. Due to the law of time and the acceleration of information processes, national economies have ceased to be isolated and are now almost completely dependent on the export and import of various goods and services.

The stable existence of a nation in the continuity of generations means that it, as a single whole, is in some way self-governing.

Self-government of society (its management) is multidimensional in nature, and only one of its aspects is the economic life of an established nation, which can proceed either in a mode of more or less pronounced economic isolation from other nations (as was the case at the time of writing by I.V. Stalin work “Marxism and the National Question”), or in the absence of economic isolation from other nations (as is the case today in most cases).

Self-government of human society in its development implies that satisfying the physiological and everyday needs of people is not the meaning of their existence (this limits the range of interests of only the lumpen), but a means of translating the meaning of life (ideals) common to a group of people into real life.

And this semantic community, if it exists, is expressed in the self-government of the nation as a single social organism, regardless of the intensity of communication between representatives of the nation living at opposite ends of the territory it occupies, and regardless of the exchange of products between remote regions.

If this meaning of life, which goes beyond the satisfaction of physiological and everyday needs, exists, then there is a nation - even if people living at different ends of the territory it occupies only know about each other’s existence and do not have any economic or other visible connections with each other.




If this meaning does not exist, then in the presence of all other signs of a nation, there is a collection of individuals speaking the same language, having (still) a common territory, the same customs and other elements of culture, but there is no nation.

In this case, there is a pseudo-national lumpen, which is doomed to either find this kind of meaning in life, or disappear into historical oblivion, becoming “ethnographic raw material” for the formation of other nations, or dying out in the process of degradation.

During periods of social crises, the proportion of lumpen people in the population increases, and this poses a great danger to society and its prospects.

The presence of this kind of meaning of life (ideals), in the presence of other signs of a nation, preserves the nation even in modern conditions, when not only the economic isolation of nations from each other is a thing of the past, but the general cultural isolation of a nation from each other is gradually becoming a thing of the past in the process of forming a single culture humanity: “The measure of a people is not what it is, but what<он>considers it beautiful and true, about which<он>sighs” (F.M. Dostoevsky).

Those. the community of economic life of a nation, its economic coherence is only one of the faces of community for an established nation, its sphere of government, in which a certain meaning of life of the many people who make up the nation is realized, and is objectively common to all of them, even if they cannot express it; it is enough for them to feel its presence in life, and, one way or another, contribute to its implementation (i.e., so that, informationally and algorithmically, they are actively involved in its implementation).

The sphere of management differs from other spheres of society in that professional management work is localized in it in relation to all other spheres of activity of society (although the boundaries of the spheres of activity are to one degree or another determined subjectively, they still exist because they are based on the objectivity of social employment statistics population by one or another type of activity).

That is: One of the signs of a nation is not the commonality of economic life (as I.V. Stalin realized), but the commonality for a historically formed nation of the meaning of life, which goes beyond the satisfaction of the physiological and everyday needs of the people who make up the nation, which is expressed in unity for the nation's sphere of governance, carried out on a professional basis, and in particular - generates the economic coherence of the nation.

This professional management work can cover both some particulars in the life of a national society, and the management of affairs of public importance in general locally and throughout society.

In the presence of the remaining characteristics of a nation given in the Stalinist definition, and the understanding that the commonality of economic life is only one of the expressions of the commonality of the sphere of management for the nation, the isolation and development in the sphere of management of the area, which includes the management on a professional basis of affairs of public importance in general on localities and on the scale of the entire national society, leads to the emergence of statehood.

Statehood and the State

Statehood is a subculture of managing, on a professional basis, matters of general public importance locally and throughout society.

Those. statehood is only one component of the sphere of management, but not the sphere of management as a whole, since the sphere of management also includes management of product exchange (i.e. trade), management of collective production and other activities outside the state apparatus and its bodies.

A state is statehood in the indicated sense, plus the territory and waters over which the jurisdiction of this statehood extends, plus the population living in the territory subject to the statehood.

Formation of statehood on a homogeneous national basis leads to widespread identification of the nation and its nation state, which is typical for Western sociology, formed on the historical experience of Europe. The influence of this sociology on the political life of Russia is expressed in the stupid transfer of its terminology to Russian reality by “scientists” and politicians.

As a result of such imitation of “advanced countries” in MULTI-national Russia and Belarus, “politicians” call the country a “nation”, want someone to express a “national idea”, and when someone expresses a certain “national idea”, then his they are accused of nationalism, xenophobia, separatism; “politicians” want to get their hands on “strategy” national security", "strategy national development”, but do not think about the need for a strategy for the safe development of a multinational society.

The inhabitants of the country become in their opinion a “multinational nation”, and official science “educates” this and other nonsense, neglecting the norms of expressing meaning through the Russian language and thereby dumbing down both itself and those who rely on the opinions of such “scientists”.

But contrary to this nonsense, statehood can also develop on a multinational basis, serving the lives of many nations that either have not developed their own national statehood, or those whose national statehood has limited sovereignty to one degree or another, since a number of problems in the life of such a national society are solved by common to several nations by statehood, multinational in the composition of the people working in it, whose power extends to the regions of formation and dominance of several national cultures.

The statehood of Russia and Belarus is a multinational statehood, common to all peoples living in it. And in this capacity it has been developing for several centuries. It is clear that identifying such multinational state with a nation-state, which type of state predominates in Europe - stupidity or malicious intent. Moreover, it is stupidity or malicious intent to try to control social life in such a state on the basis of social patterns identified in the life of nation-states.

And in relation to such statehood, on the territory subject to it there are no “national minorities” oppressed by the statehood of a certain “titular nation” or the statehood of a corporation of “titular nations”, since access to work in it is determined not by origin from representatives of this or that people, but by business qualities and the political intentions of the contenders.

According to this understanding of statehood and the state, a historically established stable nation (for example, the Tatars) may have a common sphere of governance, which includes those of its representatives who manage collective activities in the sphere of production, trade, etc., but not have its own own statehood.

The original linguistic and cultural community as a whole that has developed in any territory, if there are several separate spheres of management carried out on a professional basis in the regions of this territory, is:

or the process of formation of a nation from several nationalities, each of which has its own somewhat specific sphere of governance (in the case of erasing the boundaries separating regions in the sphere of public self-government on the basis of the meaning of life that unites people, going beyond the satisfaction of their physiological and everyday needs, and linguistic community that ensures mutual understanding without translators) - the formation of the Soviet people, but did not have time to be completed.

After the death of Stalin, the neo-Trotskyists began to talk about the existence of the Soviet people as a fait accompli, and under the influence of this propaganda myth of the neo-Trotskyists, it was in post-Stalin times that the national republics began to curtail educational systems in the national languages ​​of the peoples of the USSR and the curtailment of systems for teaching national languages ​​and the basics of local cultures to Russian-speaking representatives diaspora

This was one of the factors in creating the potential of heterogeneous nationalisms with the aim of realizing this potential in the liquidation of socialism and the dismemberment of the USSR in accordance with the US National Security Council Directive 20/1 of 08/18/1948, which was done. And now this is the basis for continued incitement by nationalists between the peoples of the former USSR.




or a process of national disunity leading to the formation of several related nations - these are the modern Great Russians, Belarusians, and Ukrainians. These are the Georgians and Adjarians (the language is Georgian, the biological basis is related to the Georgians, and there is a lot of Turkish in the culture due to the long life within the borders of the Turkish Empire).




or to the assimilation of failed nations or separated nationalities by other established nations - J.V. Stalin writes about the tendency towards the assimilation by Georgians of the South Ossetians, who for a historically long time were cut off from the North Ossetians by the Caucasus Range, as a result of which they did not have common self-government with them. This process of assimilation was brought to an end by the formation of the USSR and the development of communication between North and South Ossetia during the Soviet period of Ossetian history.




or to ethnic cleansing on territory developed for their own needs by some established nations - this was the policy the British pursued towards the indigenous population of Australia and New Zealand.

The rationale for such a policy in relation to peoples backward from the point of view of the bourgeois-liberal West was announced by W. Churchill in 1937, giving testimony to the Peel Commission regarding the pro-Zionist policy of Great Britain in Palestine:
“I do not believe that a dog in a hay has an exclusive right to that hay, even if he lies on it very long time. I do not recognize such a right. I do not admit, for example, that any great injustice has been done to the American Indians or to the Aborigines in Australia. I do not admit that these people were harmed as a result of a stronger race, a more highly developed race, or at any rate a more sophisticated race, so to speak, coming and taking their place.”

This moral and ethical position stems from the Western concept of enslaving the planet.

In all other respects, the Stalinist definition of the social phenomenon “nation” satisfies the needs of understanding national relationships, provided that there is an adequate vision of the phenomena that stand behind the words “culture” and “national character” (or “mental makeup”) included in it.

Taking into account the above, we can give the following definition of the social phenomenon “nation”:

A nation is a historically established stable community of people that arose on the basis of a commonality: 1) language, 2) territory, 3) the meaning of life, expressed in the unity and integrity of the sphere of public self-government, carried out on a professional basis, 4) mental makeup (national character), manifested 5) in a culture that unites people and reproduces on its basis in the continuity of generations.

Only the presence of all the signs taken together gives us a nation. A people is more than a nation.

A people is a nation living in an area of ​​dominance of its national culture (or culturally similar nationalities that have not formed into a nation), plus national diasporas, i.e. carriers of the corresponding national culture living in areas of dominance of other national cultures.

At the same time, diasporas may lose their linguistic community with the population of the area of ​​dominance of their national culture, while maintaining cultural identity with it in other aspects. But history knows communities broader than national ones.

If the same meaning of life is the ideal of different peoples with linguistic and cultural uniqueness, and they somehow work to ensure that these ideals are brought to life, then a community of peoples of a supranational order arises. This is a civilizational community.

It informally unites many peoples, even if their ideals have not yet become a reality in life. Let us repeat once again: “The measure of a people is not what it is, but what it considers beautiful and true” (F.M. Dostoevsky), i.e. the essence of a people is its ideals.

With this view, the observable history of mankind is the history of regional civilizations, each of which is characterized by certain life ideals that distinguish it from other regional civilizations. The West (Europe beyond the borders of Russia, Belarus, Ukraine; North America, Australia) is a set of nation-states belonging to one of the regional civilizations of the planet. Russia-Rus is another regional civilization of many peoples living in a common state for all of them.

According to the 2002 census, about 85% of Russians called themselves Russian, and the Russian language in this regional civilization is one of its system-forming factors. The last of the “Russian” in ancient texts is in most cases a definition of the land (Russian land), and not the people living on this land. It began to be used as an ethnonym only in the last few centuries.

And grammatically it is an adjective, which distinguishes it from other ethnonyms, which, without exception, are nouns in the Russian language.

Those. the word “Russian” characterizes not a national community, but a civilizational one. And therefore it is organically applicable to the Slavs, and to the Tatars, and to the Georgians, and to the Kalmyks, and to representatives of other peoples of our regional civilization, as well as to many representatives of other regional civilizations who came to Rus'.

Who dares to say that V.I. Dahl or A.F. Hilferding - not Russians? What complaints can there be about the fact that Marshal K.K. Rokossovsky is a Pole? Marshal I.Kh. Is Bagramyan an Armenian? A.V. Is Suvorov the son of an Armenian woman? P.I. Is Bagration Georgian? aircraft designers A.I. Mikoyan and M.I. Gurevich, the creators of the MiG company and the scientific school of combat aircraft design - Armenian and Jew, respectively? — All of them made a real contribution to the development of the Russian civilization of many peoples, which distinguishes any of them from the “Russians” and other nationalists who became an obstacle to the development of the civilization of multinational Rus'.

We distinguish our nationalities while within states, but as soon as we go abroad, then for foreigners we are all Russians; including Ukrainians and Belarusians, living after the collapse of the USSR in separate states, have not ceased to be part of the Russian civilizational multinational community and are perceived outside the territory of the USSR as Russians.

Accordingly, in terms of development indicators of supranational social institutions, Western civilization lags behind Russian civilization by 400 years, since the creation of the European Union, which marked the beginning of the formation of a common supranational statehood with a unified credit and financial system and legislation, with a common system of educational and other standards, etc., this is a repetition of what began in Russia back in the time of Ivan the Terrible.

And due to this objective-historical civilizational difference, philosophy (and above all, political philosophy), born on the ideals and life experience of Western nation-states, is inevitably doomed to mistakes when they try to apply the recipes it generates to identifying and resolving problems in Rus'.

An example of this is the attempt to build socialism on the ideological basis of “mraxism.” An example of this is the liberal reforms in post-Soviet Russia. And from the difference in the meaning of life between the regional civilizations of the West and Russia, the well-known words of F.I. Tyutchev - a poet-philosopher, diplomat - who received an education of a pan-European nature (i.e. Western), and with feelings and unconscious levels of the psyche expressed the Russian spirit, which is characterized by ideas that are not always expressible in the terminology of Western science:

“You can’t understand Russia with your mind,
A common arshin cannot be measured,
She's going to be special
You can only believe in Russia.”

For the same reason, the overwhelming majority of assessments of Russian civilization and its prospects by the West (as well as the East) are nonsense, since they proceed from other civilizational ideals, elevated to the rank of an uncontested absolute.

To be continued….

Nations, diasporas, individuals, multinational culture - multinational society

Stalin's definition of the term “nation”

The definition that has become almost generally accepted in the science of the USSR and the post-Soviet Russian Federation nation as a social phenomenon gave by I.V. Stalin in his work “Marxism and the National Question”. Let us present in full section I of the named work, entitled “Nation”, and not just the formulation of Stalin’s definition of this term, since the formulation represents the result - captured in the text-dialectical procedure of cognition: asking questions and finding answers to them in real life , and everyone needs to master dialectics in order to become free.

“What is a nation?

A nation is, first of all, a community, a certain community of people.

This community is neither racial nor tribal. The current Italian nation was formed from Romans, Germans, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, etc. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Germans, etc. The same must be said about the British, Germans and others, who formed into a nation from people of different races and tribes.

So, a nation is not racial or tribal, but historically established community of people.

On the other hand, there is no doubt that the great states of Cyrus or Alexander could not be called nations, although they were formed historically, formed from different tribes and races. These were not nations, but random and loosely connected conglomerates of groups that disintegrated and united depending on the successes or defeats of one or another conqueror.

So, a nation is not an accidental or ephemeral conglomerate, but stable community of people.

But not every stable community creates a nation. Austria and Russia are also stable communities, however, no one calls them nations. How does a national community differ from a state community? Incidentally, the fact that a national community is unthinkable without a common language, while a common language is not necessary for a state. The Czech nation in Austria and the Polish nation in Russia would be impossible without a common language for each of them, while the integrity of Russia and Austria is not hindered by the existence of a number of languages ​​within them. We are, of course, talking about colloquial languages, and not about official clerical ones.

So - community of language as one of the characteristic features of the nation.

This does not mean, of course, that different nations always and everywhere speak different languages, or that all speakers of the same language necessarily constitute one nation. A common language for every nation, but not necessarily different languages ​​for different nations! There is no nation that speaks different languages ​​at once, but this does not mean that there cannot be two nations speaking the same language! The British and North Americans speak the same language, and yet they do not constitute one nation. The same must be said about the Norwegians and Danes, the English and the Irish.

But why, for example, do the British and North Americans not form one nation, despite their common language?

First of all, because they do not live together, but in different territories. A nation is formed only as a result of long-term and regular communication, as a result of people living together from generation to generation. And long-term life together is impossible without a common territory. The British and Americans formerly inhabited one territory, England, and constituted one nation. Then one part of the English moved from England to a new territory, to America, and here, on the new territory, over time, formed a new North American nation. Different territories led to the formation of different nations.

So, community of territory, as one of the characteristic features of the nation.

But that is not all. Community of territory in itself does not give rise to a nation. This requires, in addition, an internal economic connection that unites individual parts of the nation into one whole. There is no such connection between England and North America, and therefore they constitute two different nations. But the North Americans themselves would not deserve the name of a nation if the individual corners of North America were not interconnected into an economic whole thanks to the division of labor between them, the development of communications, etc.

Take the Georgians, for example. Georgians of pre-reform times lived on a common territory and spoke the same language, however, they did not, strictly speaking, constitute one nation, for they, divided into a number of principalities separated from each other, could not live a common economic life, for centuries they lived among themselves wars and ruined each other, pitting the Persians and Turks against each other. The ephemeral and random unification of the principalities, which sometimes some lucky king managed to carry out, at best captured only the superficial administrative sphere, quickly breaking down due to the whims of the princes and the indifference of the peasants. Yes, it could not have been otherwise given the economic fragmentation of Georgia... Georgia, as a nation, appeared only in the second half of the 19th century, when the fall of serfdom and the growth of the country’s economic life, the development of communications and the emergence of capitalism established a division of labor between the regions of Georgia and completely undermined the economic isolation principalities and tied them into one.

The same must be said about other nations that went through the stage of feudalism and developed capitalism.

So, community of economic life, economic connectivity, as one of the characteristic features of the nation.

But that's not all. In addition to all that has been said, one must also take into account the peculiarities of the spiritual appearance of the people united in a nation. Nations differ from each other not only in their living conditions, but also in their spiritual appearance, expressed in the characteristics of their national culture. If England, North America and Ireland, who speak the same language, nonetheless constitute three different nations, then no small role in this is played by the peculiar mental make-up that has developed in them from generation to generation as a result of unequal conditions of existence.

Of course, the mental makeup itself, or - as it is otherwise called - “national character”, is something elusive for the observer, but since it is expressed in the uniqueness of the culture, the common nation, it is perceptible and cannot be ignored.

Needless to say, “national character” is not something given once and for all, but changes along with living conditions, but since it exists at every given moment, it leaves its stamp on the physiognomy of the nation.

So, community of mentality, affecting the community of culture, as one of the characteristic features of the nation.

Thus, we have exhausted all the signs of a nation.

The definition that has become almost generally accepted in the science of the USSR and the post-Soviet Russian Federation nation as a social phenomenon gave by I.V. Stalin in his work “Marxism and the National Question”. Let us present in full section I of the named work, entitled “Nation”, and not just the formulation of Stalin’s definition of this term, since the formulation represents the result - captured in the text—dialectical procedure of cognition: asking questions and finding answers to them in real life , and everyone needs to master dialectics in order to become free.

A nation is, first of all, a community, a certain community of people.

This community is neither racial nor tribal. The current Italian nation was formed from Romans, Germans, Etruscans, Greeks, Arabs, etc. The French nation was formed from Gauls, Romans, Britons, Germans, etc. The same must be said about the British, Germans and others, who formed into a nation from people of different races and tribes.

So, a nation is not racial or tribal, but historically established community of people .

On the other hand, there is no doubt that the great states of Cyrus or Alexander could not be called nations, although they were formed historically, formed from different tribes and races. These were not nations, but random and loosely connected conglomerates of groups that disintegrated and united depending on the successes or defeats of one or another conqueror.

So, a nation is not an accidental or ephemeral conglomerate, but stable community of people .

But not every stable community creates a nation. Austria and Russia are also stable communities, however, no one calls them nations. How does a national community differ from a state community? Incidentally, the fact that a national community is unthinkable without a common language, while a common language is not necessary for a state. The Czech nation in Austria and the Polish nation in Russia would be impossible without a common language for each of them, while the integrity of Russia and Austria is not hindered by the existence of a number of languages ​​within them. We are, of course, talking about colloquial languages, and not about official clerical ones.

So - community of language as one of the characteristic features of the nation.

This does not mean, of course, that different nations always and everywhere speak different languages, or that all speakers of the same language necessarily constitute one nation. A common language for every nation, but not necessarily different languages ​​for different nations! There is no nation that speaks different languages ​​at once, but this does not mean that there cannot be two nations speaking the same language! The British and North Americans speak the same language, and yet they do not constitute one nation. The same must be said about the Norwegians and Danes, the English and the Irish.

But why, for example, do the British and North Americans not form one nation, despite their common language?

First of all, because they do not live together, but in different territories. A nation is formed only as a result of long-term and regular communication, as a result of people living together from generation to generation. And long-term life together is impossible without a common territory. The British and Americans formerly inhabited one territory, England, and constituted one nation. Then one part of the English moved from England to a new territory, to America, and here, on the new territory, over time, formed a new North American nation. Different territories led to the formation of different nations.

So, community of territory, as one of the characteristic features of the nation.

But that is not all. Community of territory in itself does not give rise to a nation. This requires, in addition, an internal economic connection that unites individual parts of the nation into one whole. There is no such connection between England and North America, and therefore they constitute two different nations. But the North Americans themselves would not deserve the name of a nation if the individual corners of North America were not interconnected into an economic whole thanks to the division of labor between them, the development of communications, etc.

Take the Georgians, for example. Georgians of pre-reform times lived on a common territory and spoke the same language, however, they did not, strictly speaking, constitute one nation, for they, divided into a number of principalities separated from each other, could not live a common economic life, for centuries they lived among themselves wars and ruined each other, pitting the Persians and Turks against each other. The ephemeral and random unification of the principalities, which sometimes some lucky king managed to carry out, at best captured only the superficial administrative sphere, quickly breaking down due to the whims of the princes and the indifference of the peasants. Yes, it could not have been otherwise given the economic fragmentation of Georgia... Georgia, as a nation, appeared only in the second half of the 19th century, when the fall of serfdom and the growth of the country’s economic life, the development of communications and the emergence of capitalism established a division of labor between the regions of Georgia and completely undermined the economic isolation principalities and tied them into one.

The same must be said about other nations that went through the stage of feudalism and developed their own.

So, community of economic life, economic connectivity, as one of the characteristic features of the nation.

But that's not all. In addition to all that has been said, one must also take into account the peculiarities of the spiritual appearance of the people united in a nation. Nations differ from each other not only in their living conditions, but also in their spiritual appearance, expressed in the characteristics of their national culture. If England, North America and Ireland, who speak the same language, nonetheless constitute three different nations, then no small role in this is played by the peculiar mental make-up that has developed in them from generation to generation as a result of unequal conditions of existence.

Of course, the mental makeup itself, or - as it is otherwise called - “national character”, is something elusive for the observer, but since it is expressed in the uniqueness of the culture, the common nation, it is perceptible and cannot be ignored.

Needless to say, “national character” is not something given once and for all, but changes along with the conditions of life, but since it exists at every given moment, it leaves its stamp on the physiognomy of the nation.

So, community of mentality, affecting the community of culture, as one of the characteristic features of the nation.

Thus, we have exhausted all the signs of a nation.

A nation is a historically established stable community of people that arose on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life and mental makeup, manifested in a common culture.

At the same time, it is self-evident that a nation, like any historical phenomenon, is subject to the law of change, has its own history, beginning and end.

It must be emphasized that none of these characteristics, taken separately, is sufficient to define a nation. Moreover: the absence of at least one of these signs is enough for a nation to cease to be a nation.

It is possible to imagine people with a common “national character” and yet it cannot be said that they constitute one nation if they are economically separated, live in different territories, speak different languages, etc. These are, for example, Russian, Galician, American, Georgian and mountain Jews, not constituting, in our opinion, a single nation.

One can imagine people with a common territory and economic life, and yet they will not form one nation without a common language and “national character.” Such are, for example, the Germans and Latvians in the Baltic region.

Finally, Norwegians and Danes speak the same language, but they do not constitute one nation due to the absence of other characteristics.

Only the presence of all the signs taken together gives us a nation.

It may seem that “national character” is not one of the characteristics, but only an essential feature of a nation, and all other features constitute, in fact, conditions development of the nation, and not its signs. This point of view is held, for example, by the well-known Social-Democrats in Austria. theorists of the national question R. Springer and, especially, O. Bauer

Let us consider their theory of the nation.

According to Springer, “a nation is a union of like-minded people talking people" This is the “cultural community of the group” modern people, not connected to the “ground” ( italics ours ).

So - a “union” of people who think and speak the same way, no matter how separated they are from each other, no matter where they live.

“What is a nation? he asks. — Is it a common language that unites people into a nation? But the English and the Irish... speak the same language, but do not represent a single people; Jews do not have a common language at all and nevertheless constitute a nation.” .

So what is a nation?

“A nation is a relative community of character” .

But what is character, in this case, national character?

National character is “the sum of characteristics that distinguish people of one nationality from people of another nationality, a complex of physical and spiritual qualities that distinguishes one nation from another.” .

Bauer, of course, knows that national character does not fall from the sky, and therefore he adds:

“The character of people is determined by nothing other than their fate,” that ... “a nation is nothing more than a community of fate,” which in turn is determined by “the conditions under which people produce the means of their subsistence and distribute the products of their labor.” .

Thus, we have arrived at the most “complete,” as Bauer puts it, definition of a nation.

“A nation is the entire collection of people united in a community of character on the basis of a community of fate” .

So, a community of national character based on a community of fate, taken without any obligatory connection with the community of territory, language and economic life.

But what remains in this case of the nation? What kind of national community can we talk about among people who are economically separated from each other, living in different territories and speaking different languages ​​from generation to generation?

Bauer speaks of Jews as a nation, although “they do not have a common language at all,” but what kind of “common destiny” and national coherence can we talk about, for example, among Georgian, Dagestan, Russian and American Jews, completely divorced from each other? friends living in different territories and speaking different languages?

The Jews mentioned, no doubt, live by the common economic and political life with Georgians, Dagestanis, Russians and Americans, in a common cultural atmosphere; this cannot but leave its stamp on their national character; if they have anything left in common, it is their common origin and some remnants of national character. All this is certain. But how can one seriously say that ossified religious rituals and eroding psychological remains influence the “fate” of the mentioned Jews more than the living socio-economic and cultural environment surrounding them? But only with such an assumption can one speak of Jews in general as a single nation.

How then does Bauer’s nation differ from the mystical and self-sufficient “national spirit” of the spiritualists?

Bauer draws an impassable line between “ distinctive feature” of the nation (national character) and the “conditions” of their life, separating them from each other. But what is national character if not a reflection of living conditions, if not a bunch of impressions received from environment? How can one limit oneself to national character alone, isolating and separating it from the soil that gave birth to it?

Then, how, in fact, did the English nation differ from the North American nation at the end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th centuries, when North America was still called “New England”? Certainly not by national character: for the North Americans were immigrants from England, they took with them to America, except in English, still had an English national character and, of course, could not lose it so quickly, although under the influence of new conditions they must have developed their own special character. And yet, despite their greater or lesser commonality of character, they already constituted a nation separate from England!

Obviously, “New England” as a nation differed then from England as a nation not in its special national character, or not so much in its national character, but in its special environment and living conditions from England.

Thus, it is clear that in reality there is no single distinctive feature nation. There is only a sum of characteristics, of which, when comparing nations, one characteristic (national character), then another (language), then a third (territory, economic conditions) stands out more clearly. A nation represents a combination of all characteristics taken together.

Bauer's point of view, which identifies the nation with the national character, tears the nation away from the soil and turns it into some kind of invisible, self-sufficient force. The result is not a nation, alive and active, but something mystical, elusive and beyond the grave. For, I repeat, what kind of Jewish nation is this, for example, consisting of Georgian, Dagestan, Russian, American and other Jews, whose members do not understand each other (they speak different languages), live in different parts globe, will never see each other, will never perform together, neither in peacetime nor in wartime?!

No, it is not for such paper “nations” that Social Democracy makes its national program. It can only take into account real nations, acting and moving, and therefore forcing themselves to be taken into account.

Bauer is obviously mixing nation, being a historical category, with tribe, which is an ethnographic category.

However, Bauer himself apparently senses the weakness of his position. Having decisively declared at the beginning of his book about the Jews as a nation, Bauer corrects himself at the end of the book, asserting that “capitalism generally does not allow them (the Jews) to survive as a nation,” assimilating them with other nations. The reason, it turns out, is that “the Jews do not have a closed colonization area,” while such an area exists, for example, among the Czechs, who, according to Bauer, must survive as a nation. In short: the reason is the lack of territory.

By reasoning this way, Bauer wanted to prove that national autonomy could not be a demand of the Jewish workers, but he thereby inadvertently overturned his own theory, which denies community of territory as one of the signs of a nation.

But Bauer goes further. At the beginning of his book he states emphatically that “the Jews have no general language and nevertheless constitute a nation.” But before he had time to reach page one hundred and thirty, he had already changed front, declaring just as decisively: “there is no doubt that no nation is possible without a common language”(emphasis added).

Bauer here wanted to prove that “language is the most important tool of human communication,” but at the same time he inadvertently proved something that he did not intend to prove, namely: the inconsistency of his own theory of the nation, which denies the importance of a common language.

This is how the theory stitched together with idealistic threads refutes itself” (I.V. Stalin. Works, vol. 2, Moscow, 1946, pp. 292 - 303).

In the full text of the given section of the article the definition of a nation given by J.V. Stalin appears as having a basis in the historical process, and not simply as a declarative definition of a term in which subjectivism is expressed, which can be contrasted with another subjectivism with claims to the ultimate truth. This is the advantage of I.V. Stalin’s definition, and this is what distinguishes it from other definitions of the term “nation”.

The Stalinist definition of a nation was an official scientific definition in the USSR and in post-Stalin times, although, when citing this definition or stylistically reworking it, the work of I.V. Stalin “Marxism and the National Question” after the XX Congress of the CPSU was in most cases not referred to (in addition it, like all other works of I.V. Stalin, was not reprinted and was withdrawn from public access in libraries). Actually, the same signs of a nation that J.V. Stalin gives in his definition are given in the modern school textbook of “social studies” edited by L.N. Bogolyubov (vol. 2, “Man and Society” - a textbook for 10 - 11 classes, M., “Enlightenment”, ed. 8, 2003), although they are not reduced to a strict definition of the term “nation”: the historical nature of the formation of nations (p. 316, paragraph 2), language ( ibid., p. 316, paragraph 3), common territory and economic connectivity (ibid., p. 316, paragraph 5), common culture (ibid., pp. 316, 317), in which national character is expressed and thanks to which national character is reproduced in the continuity of generations (although the textbook leaves the question of national character and national psychology in silence).

But in the work of I.V. Stalin “Marxism and the National Question”, due to various objective and subjective reasons, topics are not considered, an adequate understanding of which is necessary for the harmonization of national relations in multinational societies:

The lack of adequate coverage of the above-mentioned problems by the sociological science of the USSR is one of the reasons why the process of formation of a new historical community, called the “Soviet people,” was interrupted, and national conflicts played a significant role in the deliberate destruction of the USSR by foreign policy forces. And this is one of the threats to the territorial integrity of post-Soviet Russia and the well-being of its peoples.

A few months later, the Prime Minister of Great Britain also joined the opinion of the German Chancellor. “British Prime Minister David Cameron was accused of indulging far-right organizations - British anti-fascists, Muslims and oppositionists criticized the politician for the Munich speech. The day before, from the podium of a security conference, he announced the failure of the multicultural policy. Within a few hours, a massive anti-Islamic demonstration took place in the city of Luton, reports Echo of Moscow "(Cameron announced that the multicultural policy had failed. We need to show our muscles": http://www.newsru.com/world/06feb2011/kemeron.html ).

Then French President Nicolas Sarkozy joined them:

“We worried too much about the identity of the people coming into our country, but not enough about the identity of our own country that received them,” he said last Thursday<10.02.2010>in a television interview and directly called the policy of multiculturalism unsuccessful.

“Of course we should all respect differences, but we do not want... a society consisting of separate communities existing side by side. If you come to live in France, you must agree to dissolve, as in a melting pot, in a single society, namely in the national society, and if you do not want to accept this, then you cannot be a welcome guest in France" (... )

Federal Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel and former prime ministers of Australia and Spain John Howard and Jose Maria Aznar also spoke about the failure of the multicultural policy” (http://www.newsru.com/world/11feb2011/sarkozy.html).

The Dutch went the furthest. “The Dutch government has said it intends to abandon the old model of multiculturalism, which encouraged Muslim immigrants to create a parallel society in the Netherlands.

The new integration bill (covering letter and 15-page action plan), which Dutch Interior Minister Piet Hein Donner presented to parliament on June 16, states: “The government shares public dissatisfaction with the multicultural model of society and plans to shift towards preserving the values ​​of the Dutch people.

With the new system integration, the values ​​of Dutch society will play a central role. In connection with this change, the government is abandoning the model of a multicultural society” (“Hudson New York”, USA - June 23, 2011; “The Netherlands to Abandon Multiculturalism”; http://perevodika.ru/articles/18983.html) .

In Norway, politicians did not make official statements regarding the collapse of multiculturalism, but on July 22, 2011, a member of the Masonic lodge of St. Olaf Anders Behring Breivik (holder of the 7th degree of initiation - “Knight of the East”, was a member of the supreme chapter of the lodge; after the terrorist attack, “bros” announced the expulsion of Breivik from the box) staged an explosion in the government quarter of Oslo and opened fire at the youth camp of the ruling workers' party on the island of Utøya. The attacks killed 77 people.

But a lot says that Breivik is not a crazy loner, but has taken sole legal responsibility for a certain “brigade” and acts as its mouthpiece. This is supported by the fact that, according to what was shown in the first television reports from the scene of the tragedy on the island of Utøya, the bodies of many of the dead lay on the shore in places that were poorly visible from the heights of the island because of bushes, etc. This gave the impression that they, having run away from Breivik, who was shooting on the island, tried to leave the island by swimming, but already on the way to the water’s edge they were killed by shots fired from a boat or from the other shore. In addition, in 2011, there were reports on the Internet that Breivik was supervised by the British MI5 and the CIA. And in August 2012, the results of an official investigation into the activities of government agencies were announced, according to which the police did not take timely measures to neutralize Breivik and demands were made to release Breivik and threats were made against Norwegian officials on behalf of the “Templar Order.”

In his speech at the trial on April 17, 2012, Breivik stated: “I stand here as a representative of the Norwegian, European, anti-communist and anti-Islamic opposition movement: the Norwegian-European Resistance Movement. And also as a representative of the Templars. I speak on behalf of many Norwegians, Scandinavians, Europeans who do not want to be deprived of their rights as an indigenous ethnic group, do not want to be deprived of cultural and territorial rights. (...) we have the right to ask two very important questions to politicians, journalists, scientists and public figures. First question: Do you think it is undemocratic that the Norwegian people never had the opportunity to hold a referendum on turning the country into a multi-ethnic and multicultural state? Is it undemocratic to turn to your own citizens for advice? Second question: Is it democratic to never ask the citizens of one’s own country whether they are willing to welcome African and Asian refugees into their homes, and indeed, to turn native citizens into a minority in one’s own country?” (http://pavel-slob.livejournal.com/515445.html ; http://worldcrisis.ru/crisis/971021?PARENT_RUBR=wc_social&PARENT_ORDER=-WRITTEN%2C-PUBLISHED)

From this it can be understood that multiculturalism, if it has not failed in Norway, is opposed to it, as elsewhere in Europe, by a fair share of the indigenous population; and there are reasons for this in the statistically massive behavior of aliens from different cultures and their descendants.