The word is familiar to many. But not everyone correctly understands what it means. In the view of many people, cosmopolitanism is something very negative. It happened historically. Let's try to understand in more detail the semantic shades of this ideological term.
Short story
This concept is familiar to mankind since the time of ancient philosophy. In short, cosmopolitanism is an ideology that puts the interests of all mankind above the interests of one particular nation or group of individuals. And, accordingly, cosmopolitans are usually called people who do not attach particular importance to their national roots, have a good level of knowledge, as a rule, in several languages, and are able to live without any problems in any country where fate will throw them. These people themselves often call themselves cosmopolitans and "citizens of the world"
. It should be noted that usually cosmopolitanism is something that opposes the concept of patriotism. And the relations of these two ideological poles are asymmetrical. Cosmopolitans are completely indifferent to patriots, while patriots begin to fight in a hysterical fit at the sight of cosmopolitan. But the degree of discussion between the adherents of these two opposing concepts continues to remain very high for many years. This remains a series of eternal questions: "What is more important - the prosperity of individual nations or the general progress of all mankind?" Despite the fact that one here does not contradict the other.
The fight against cosmopolitanism in the USSR
The topic of cosmopolitanism in the Soviet Union deserves a completely separate consideration. The meaning of this term itself has fundamentally transformed and few people already remember its original meaning. The cornerstone of Soviet national policy was officially proclaimed internationalism. That is, the equality of all nations of a multinational country.
In general, this principle was respected, often at the expense of the indigenous, state-forming Russian nation. But to one, numerically small nationality, the attitude was not so unambiguous.
We are talking about Soviet Jews. Their influence was considered by many to be excessive and disproportionate. And for a long time they tried to limit this influence by unspoken measures of influence. The Soviet leadership could not openly carry out anti-Semitic policies; this would have met with a sharp condemnation of the entire progressive world community.
After the victory in World War II, Stalin could not be likened to Hitler, who destroyed the Jews. And he introduced this lascivious term, distorted in meaning. Cosmopolitanism is something that seems to be not so reprehensible to fight with. The introduction of this stigma in circulation meant a transition to a policy of open repression against Soviet Jews. It is in this context that the majority of Soviet people remember this term itself - cosmopolitanism. Most Jews recall the years of fighting it with horror. Despite the fact that they were not so long and ended in March 1953 with the death of Stalin.
