Forum

1. It is obvious that Yura has encountered such ideas — concepts — thoughts for the first time; perhaps that is why he sincerely believes that Khomyakov's formulations are something original and therefore valuable. I'll have to disappoint: among the nearly fifty theses of this "personality," which I took the liberty of skimming "diagonally," I didn't see a single one claiming originality (except for some completely insignificant ones). This is quite enough for me to stop studying it, as a worthy thing cannot be a mere compilation, even if it is well done. In general, I've already pointed this out to you, but you're starting again with "Kh.'s original ideas."

Individually, I have of course seen many of these theses before. But all together — yes, I haven't. If you have, share the link, I'll read it.

Ideology differs from a set of ideas in that within an ideology, ideas are organized, given a certain cohesive form, and instructions are formed on what to do with them.

Marginality does not exclude trendiness, and vice versa. But nationalism certainly does not claim originality or novelty, regardless of how it is prepared or under what sauce.

History develops in a spiral... each subsequent turn is similar to the previous one, yet differs from it.

Economic crises, for instance, repeat according to Kondratiev's algorithm written about 85 years ago, yet each time the next crisis arrives "suddenly." Oh, a crisis. Just like winter for public utility services.

Moreover, anyone interested in history will admit that, as a rule, nationalist ideas appear at a moment of crisis and decline, like miasmas on the body of a critically ill patient, rather than during prosperity. That is, in a sense, these words are synonyms: nationalism — crisis — decline.

Oh, how debatable... and the cause-and-effect relationship is even more debatable. Take, for example, recent manifestations of nationalism — in the Soviet republics during the collapse of the USSR. It is clear that the surge of nationalism here was purely a consequence of the Union's decline.

Essentially, the modern surge of nationalism is a kind of reaction to the decline of the global economy. And the delay is perfectly visible — first the crisis, then the ramp-up of nationalist ideas. Moreover, in many places independently of each other.

Which is understandable — in conditions of a dwindling trough, one has to start fighting to preserve one's share in it, taking that share from others. That is, some marker of "us vs them" is needed. Racial and national characteristics have served as a good dividing line in all times, and today's situation is no exception.

Now for something more serious. About those who, adjusting their pince-nez, wondered at the seizure of the Winter Palace. Even if we assume that the worst-case scenario awaits Earth — wars-catastrophes-terror-degeneration — the triumph of nationalism. What will Khomyakov's knowledge, as well as similar literature, give people? The ability to organize resistance? To mimic nationalists in time? Or an answer to the question of what to do? Personally, this will definitely help me acquire nothing.

Well, it gave me an understanding of the philosophical basis of Russian national-extremism. Before reading this text, I didn't have such an understanding. Although, I wasn't specifically looking for it, and here it just fell into my hands, so I read it. And at the same time, I realized the scale of the problem — that is, perhaps, the main benefit.

As for how this understanding can be used — I have no idea. Maybe it'll be useful, maybe not. In any case, knowledge is never redundant, especially in light of the factors I pointed out.

By the way, I don't know a single state — in its period of power — that was based on national ideas.

That depends on what is meant by "power"... if it's the size of the territory and the number of subjects, then naturally national ideas won't work here — imperial mechanisms are needed to incorporate neighboring peoples into the state. Khomyakov examines this process in detail.

What first associates with nationalism for me — African internecine wars. UNA-UPA. Hitlerism.

Try to make your associative array richer. Add examples from past centuries-millennia. You'll see the coloring of the term change. Especially if you add examples of Russian nationalism.

Regarding Hitler, keep in mind that he has such a reputation now simply because he lost recently, and in politics it is common practice to portray recent opponents in the darkest light possible. They probably spoke even worse of Carthage in the 2nd century BC, and now for us it's just a historical episode, a struggle for the right to lead the development of humanity. I think in about 500 years, a similar attitude will be toward Hitler.

The nail in the coffin of nationalism: if Hitlerism had not been based on a national idea, then, in the opinion of many people authoritative to me, it would have had extremely high chances of winning the Second World War.

A very debatable opinion... I would say that such opinions are generally anti-intellectual because they don't even allow for the possibility of constructive verification. From the series "if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a bicycle."

P.S.
Imagine that you and I decided to study some topic in your specialty. C++ 10.36 Vista. I think that in this case, even reading "diagonally," you would still be incomparably more competent than I, attempting to study territories unknown to me.

I didn't quite understand what this phrase is for. Is your specialty related to politics/economics/ideology? Well then, tell me, a fool, how it all works there. I'm not imposing my opinion here in the topic; rather, the opposite, I wish to obtain them, even if through a dispute-discussion.