Cosmopolitanism is bad?

The word is familiar to many. But not everyone correctly represents what it means. In the view of many people, cosmopolitanism is something very negative. It happened historically. Let's try to understand more in the semantic nuances 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 humanity above the interests of one particular nation or group of individuals. And, accordingly, cosmopolitans usually refer to people who do not attach special importance to their national roots, who at a good level have, as a rule, several languages and are able to live without problems in any country where fate will cast them. These people themselves often call themselves cosmopolitans and "citizens of the world" . It should be noted that usually cosmopolitanism is something that is opposed to the notion of patriotism. And the relationship of these two ideological poles is asymmetric. Cosmopolitans to patriots are completely indifferent, whereas patriots begin to beat in a hysterical fit at the sight of a cosmopolitan. But the degree of discussion between the adherents of these two opposing concepts continues to be very high for many years. This remains one of the 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 struggle against cosmopolitanism in the USSR

A completely separate consideration deserves the theme of cosmopolitanism in the Soviet Union. The meaning of the term itself has been radically transformed here and few people 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 observed, often due to the radical, state-forming Russian nation. But to one, numerically small nationality the attitude was not so unambiguous.
It's about Soviet Jews. Their influence was considered by many to be excessive and disproportionate. And for a long time this influence was attempted to be limited by unofficial measures of influence. The Soviet leadership could not openly pursue anti-Semitic policy; it would meet with a sharp condemnation of the entire world progressive society.
After the victory in the Great Patriotic War, Stalin could not be compared to Hitler, who exterminated the Jews. And he was put into circulation this distorted by the meaning of a lewd term. Cosmopolitanism - this is something to fight with, it seems, is not so reprehensible. The introduction of this stigma into circulation meant a transition to a policy of open repression against Soviet Jews. Most of the Soviet people in this context remember this very term - cosmopolitanism. Years of struggle against him, most Jews remember with horror. Despite the fact that they were not so long and ended in March 1953 together with the death of Stalin.