Konchenko K. K.

Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation

Cosmopolitanism and internationalism in the USSR: the roots of conflict

For people raised and educated in the USSR the term “cosmopolitanism” is associated with the rejection of national identity, state sovereignty and, in some cases, the loss of personal freedom. This article aims to delineate terms “cosmopolitanism” and “internationalism” given in the soviet and modern literature, and to find the origins of the persecution of alleged cosmopolitans.

I consider the first thing to do within the framework of the issue is give a modern definition of terms “cosmopolitanism” and “internationalism”. The first one will be composed of two complementary definitions. Thus, cosmopolitanism is defined as a state of mind, ideology, credo, certain system of philosophical views on the world and the person’s place in it [1], these views are based on denial of recognizing the priority of national traditions and culture over the culture and traditions of other countries and peoples originating from common interests and values of all mankind [2].

The term “internationalism” can be defined as an ideological and political principle proclaiming, opposing to nationalism, equality, solidarity and cooperation among all nations [3].

Now, as we defined essential terms (their modern meaning), the definitions given in the Soviet literature should be analyzed. Thus, cosmopolitanism is defined by E. D. Mordzhinskaya as an ideology of so-called “global citizenship”, reactionary bourgeois ideology that denies the state and national sovereignty, preaches renunciation of national traditions, national culture, patriotism [4]. In the same source the author claims that cosmopolitanism calls for the integration of nations through forced assimilation and enslavement of peoples of the world by imperialism. In this part E. D. Mordzhinskaya contrasts the “bourgeois cosmopolitanism” and “proletarian internationalism” stating that the Marxists consider the perspective of convergence and later the merging of nations in terms of the objective course of social development, testifying that the merging of nations is a long process, coming as a result of liberation and prosperity of nations and derived entirely voluntary. For comparison, we should give the definition of internationalism by S. T. Kaltakhchyan from the same source. He defines internationalism as a commonality of interests and solidarity of the workers of different nationalities and races, manifested in their psychology, ideology and social practice. It is an international solidarity of the working class, the Communists of all countries in the struggle for common goals, their solidarity with the struggle of peoples for national liberation and social progress [4].

In some ways, the definitions of cosmopolitanism and internationalism overlap, for example, common goals and interests are put to the fore. But the differences go further: if cosmopolitanism is not limited to a certain group of people, uniting all mankind, the internationalism, as we could see, can only be a trait of the working class, the communists. This element reappears in the opposition: “We have right internationalism, you have reactionary bourgeois and hostile cosmopolitanism”. Thus, the image of the enemy was clear. “Our enemy is cosmopolitan”.

Very helpful during the review of cosmopolitanism as a proletarian internationalism’s enemy ideology can be a book called “Image of the enemy in Soviet propaganda” by A. V. Fateev. He claims that the first systematic definition of the term “cosmopolitanism” was given in “Literature paper” (issued April 17, 1948). In his words, the definition evolved from “groveler to foreign culture” to “traitor” [5].

"Citizens of the world", stressed "Literature paper", discarded the notion of national identity and independence; they are deeply hostile to internationalism, his homeland, its traditions, culture and art. "This is a product of imperialist ideologists who want to destroy the independence of the peoples of the world through the creation of blocks". The article task was to wage an uncompromising struggle against manifestations of cosmopolitanism in intelligentsia class who like to "show off western novelty... or questionable cosmopolitan erudition" [5].

It is clear from these observations that using words, terms and figures of speech that cause negative reactions such as "groveler", "traitor", "imperialist ideologist who wants to destroy the independence of nations", soviet propagandists created the image of an ideological enemy who must be defeated at all costs. According to professor A. Lerner, anyone could be accused of cosmopolitanism, if one's work was quoted by foreign scientists, if it [the work] was mentioned in Western science, or if an author did not care enough about declaring the priority of Russia and the Soviet Union in all the cultural achievements of the world [6].

From the foregoing it can be concluded that the cosmopolitans were made enemies of the state and traitors in public opinion. With similarities in the definitions of internationalism and cosmopolitanism, Soviet understanding of internationalism came primarily not from the interests of the state, but from the confrontation between capitalist, "rootless cosmopolitan" and socialist "proletarian international" systems.

Literature:

1. Chumakov A.N. Globalization and cosmopolitanism in the context of modernity // Questions of philosophy. – 2009. – №1.

2. Philosophy: the Encyclopedic dictionary. – M.: Gardariki, 2004.

3. Komlev N.G. Dictionary of Foreign Words, 2006.

4. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Philosophy. – M.: Sovetskaya enciklopedia, 1983.

5. Fateev A.V. Image of the enemy in Soviet propaganda. 1945-1954. Monograph. –М.: Institut rossijskoy istorii RAN, 1999.

6. Lerner A. Change of Heart. – Balaban Publishers, 1992. P. 139.