عنوان مقاله [English]
Introduction: This article aims to explore a semi-hidden duality and contradiction within the ideology of Marxism, and the period under discussion is from the announcement of the Communist Manifesto in 1848 to the death of Stalin in 1953. The characters discussed in this article are Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels as the founders of Marxism and Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky and Joseph Stalin as the first leaders of the Soviet Union. The concepts of nation, nationalism and cosmopolitranism and their corresponding concepts have been used frequently in Marxist works but the attitude of the founders of Marxism, Marx and Engels and the first political leaders of Marxism, Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin, who were the first leaders of the Soviet Union were not the same, both in the theoretical and practical aspects towards these concepts. In general issues such as nation and nationalism on the one hand and cosmopolitranism on the other are opposing concepts; Also, in ideology of Marxism, proletarian cosmopolitranism is proposed as an ultimate ideal. Therefore, it is expected that the attitude of Marxists towards the nation and nationalism has always been pessimistic and negative and towards cosmopolitranism, it has always been optimistic and positive, but the issue that this article intends to address and analyze is that their attitude towards these concepts and phenomena is not always based on this model and the duality and contradiction that is sometimes hidden and sometimes obvious in their speech and actions, is visible. This duality and contradiction appear from the founding and emergence of the ideology of Marxism by Marx and Engels until the later Marxists such as Georgy Plekhanov, Karl Kautsky and Rosa Luxemburg to the first leaders of Soviet Union and many other great Marxists. Sometimes the concepts of nation and nationalism can be seen in the works of the first thinkers and leaders of Marxism in such a way that they seem to have accepted these concepts as social realities, both in the objective and the subjective dimension and have a positive aspect. This is while these thinkers and leaders in their other works consider the nation and nationalism as a negative phenomenon that should be removed from the field of human societies. Whenever the discussed thinkers consider the nation and nationalism with an optimistic attitude, it is assumed that they do not have much inclination towards cosmopolitranism or even reject it, because the nation and nationalism in general are not compatible with cosmopolitranism. While in many of their works, completely optimistic and biased attitudes towards cosmopolitranism and transnationalism can be seen and this is another aspect of duality and conflict under discussion. There is no doubt that the ideology of Marxism inherently does not want to be limited to a territorial area, even to the extent of a country. Considering its slogans and its content, this ideology is a universal thought and wants to include as many minds and lands as possible. Therefore, the tendency and partiality of early Marxists towards cosmopolitranism is a fundamental tendency and their optimistic attitude towards nationalism which is sometimes expressed, is superficial.
Research Question: Based on the above-mentioned explanations, we can raise the question of what were the views of the founders of Marxism and the first leaders of the Soviet Union regarding the concepts of nation and nationalism compared to cosmopolitranism, and what are the reasons for the duality and conflict about it?
Research Hypothesis: In this regard, it can be hypothesized that the reason for the duality and conflict of attitudes towards the concepts of nation and nationalism compared to cosmopolitranism in Marxism is the use of nation and nationalism as a tool to achieve ideological goals, including cosmopolitranism.
Methodology: The research method is qualitative and is based on Quentin Skinner’s Speech and its data is collected from library resources. In this method, the author’s intention is the most important issue, and its ultimate meaning is in the author’s situation and objective intention. Also, the collected data has been analyzed in this article.
Results and Discussion: In this article, it is concluded that the discussed duality and contradiction arose because the founders and first political leaders of Marxism considered the nation and nationalism as a means to achieve their ideals and ideological goals, including the spread of Marxism and transnationalism. In other words, they have no faith and respect for the nation and nationalism and only use these concepts as tools based on the idea of "the end justifies the means" used these concepts as instruments.
Conclusion: This instrumental use specially was to achieve these goals: the advancement of ideological goals, including the facilitation of proletarian revolutions and the achievement of cosmopolitranism. for the survival of the newly established Soviet government; To create a united front in support of the Soviet Union against the capitalist front; Compromise with capitalist enemy countries and finally the possibility of coexistence of different ethnicities and nations within the Soviet Union, including Central Asian nations and then trying to integrate them within the framework of Marxism ideology. These findings can answer some questions and issues related to Marxism, for example, in Central Asian countries and reveal the reasons for the failure of this ideology at the level of the international system. The results of this research can be used to analyze other Marxist tendencies, including Marxist parties and groups.