4.1.2. NATIONALISM AND COSMOPOLITISM  

In contemporary political life one can hardly find a notion that is more distorted than the notion of impetuous developing nationalism. The ever-prospering demagogues even now do not omit the chance to make popularity for themselves by brandishing before the public one or another bit of truth about the new complex political realities. On the one hand, there is no politician who in one way or another does not try to present himself as an exponent of the national interests and frequently as a saver of the nation as well. On the other hand, many of them, in order to conceal their antinational position, go by the most primitive manifestations of national extremism and hurriedly announce all the nationalists for Nazis, for fascists and generally for folk with antediluvian cave thinking. That is just because they have tripped up unifying of humanity on the base of healing-all principles of democracy, of free enterprise and of cosmopolitism. However, after the collapse of the world communist system its main adversary began just in that manner to conceal its own imperial nationalism, and, in its striving for world domination, called the nationalism of other countries “the last shelter of communism”. But it is the Earth of the United Nations that is a perspective future of humanity and not the Earth of the United States of America. Therefore, this future can be built only in the way of a reasonable, fair and wise balance between the naturally opposing each other nationalism and cosmopolitism.

The words in the living language are usually polysemantic and this is an important part of their power. However, in their using as terms for marking of basic notions in a given scientific sphere, every polysemy and ambiguity are inadmissible. Unfortunately, polysemy, ambiguity and vicious circular determinations of the complex notions people, nation and nationalism are met at every step. In the 15-th edition of Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, there are tens of articles in the title of which the word “national” participates, but a determination of the notion “nation” itself is missing in the sense used in them. While about the notion “nationalism” is said “Nationalism may be defined as a state of mind in which the individual feels that every one owes his supreme loyalty to the nation-state”. Even the ancient Greeks ridiculed the unfounded on the human essence determination of man as a biped without feathers. Now wee see here an unfounded on the essence of nation determination of nationalism as a kind of state of the self-consciousness of the individual. At that, for characterizing the state is used undetermined in advance but connected with nationalism notion “nation”, on account of that the determination is closed into a vicious circle. To cap it all, the notion “nation” incorrectly is mixed up with the notion “state” (in the sense of a politic body) as well. In the world terminology an expression of mixing up of these two notions is also the term “nationalization” for marking the change of non-state ownership into state ownership. Actually, however, the state is not the nation, although it represents an attribute of every developed contemporary nation.

Man is a triple knot of the material, of the living and of the consciousizing nature in our three-way determined world. [Both in the treatment 1.1 and in this treatment the new words consciousize (be conscious of) and consciousizing (the verbal adverb of this verb) are introduced for using the polysignificant English word realize only in the customary for Bulgarian language meaning of put into being, make real, as well as the word consciousnessic is introduced for designating the lacking in English language notion of the respective adjective.] We know two mutually related but essentially different kinds of consciousizing nature: man as a consciously acting subject, called also person, and human society as a union of persons, called also socium. Every aggregate of persons, called also folk, who themselves or by the rest folk are consciousized as united in some relation, represents a concrete formation of socium. The formations of socium begin from every having been awared communication between two men, pass through the state unions of folk and end with humanity on the planet Earth. Other examples about formations of socium are the members of a family or the travellers in a compartment.

People is such a formation of socium in which folk are consciousized as united by the same gensic origin, more distant than the gensic origin of every one of them, by one name, marking this origin, and most generally – by one being, which has been differentiated as a result of their prolonging communication in all respects. On account of that, the belonging to a given people represents a datum independent of our personal choice. Thus as no one of us can choose his parents, independently of that whether he likes them or dislikes them, whether he knows or does not know them, in such a manner we cannot choose our people or peoples from which our parents are descended. For example, Bulgarians by origin are all folk in the world who consciousize themselves as belonging to the Bulgarian stock, in manifestation of that call themselves Bulgarians and every one of them in his own way presents the Bulgarian being. However, Bulgarian by origin is also the adopted in a foreign country Bulgarian child who does not know his origin, as well as the Pomak (speaking Bulgarian Mohammedan) from the town of Iakoruda who tells you “I am a Turk because I believe in Allah and if I am not a Turk I cannot be a good Muslim.”

In contrast to the people, the nation is a formation of socium in which folk are consciousized themselves as united by the same history, a shorter or a longer one, by a generally accepted language, and most generally – by one culture, in which they prefer to exist and through which they hold to express themselves. On account of that, the belonging to a given nation represents a datum depending on our personal choice, that datum every one of us can prefer or cannot prefer, and, in the final reckoning, may choose as a place and a way of his life. That is why, it is one thing for you to be Bulgarian by origin, i.e. to belong entirely or at least by the line of one of your direct kin predecessors to the Bulgarian people, and quite another thing is for you to prefer to exist and to hold to express yourself within the Bulgarian nation. There are not few Bulgarians by origin that live outside Bulgaria entirely tearing themselves away from the bosom of the Bulgarian nation and transmitting themselves into representatives of the nation that has adopted them or of the other nation, that they have chosen. In the same time, besides Bulgarians by origin living in Bulgaria, to the Bulgarian nation also belong all the rest of Bulgarians by origin living outside it and holding on the Bulgarian national traits. Along with this the Bulgarian nation embraces all representatives of other peoples in Bulgaria as well, called in a case of a greater compactness ethnic communities or ethnic groups, as for example are Bulgarian Gipsies, Bulgarian Jews, Bulgarian Armenians etc., as well as all emigrants from Bulgarians lands that keep the Bulgarian spirit, what for instance are the Bulgarian Jews in Israel. It is true that Bulgarian Jews in Israel belong to the Jewish nation too, as well as Bulgarian emigrants in other states become also representatives of the nation that has adopted them, but this does not exclude for them to be representatives of the Bulgarian nation as well, when they keep their Bulgarian culture or at least their Bulgarian being. Such representatives of the Bulgarian nation are, for example, our Poturnaks (speaking Turkish Mohammedans)-emigrants in Turkey, when, although their strongly deformed Bulgarian self-awareness, they keep their Bulgarian characters and customs, and frequently the speaking of Bulgarian language as well.

The great complexity and nearness between the notions people and nation usually lead to their mixing one with the other (in English the notion people also is mixed with the notion folk – pay attention to how these notions are defined in this treatment), and similarly with the notion for the citizens of a state as well; or even with the notion of the state itself, as has already been marked above. On the same shallow logic also is broadly spread the comprehension that initially there were only tribes and peoples, which had transformed themselves into nations only during the recent centuries, at that, thanks to the states created by them or at least – thanks to their striving for creating there own state. According to the given determination, however, the peoples and the nations were formed and developed simultaneously right at the beginning of human history, and, in spite of there narrow mutual connection, they should not be mixed. Because the being origin does not coincide with the history, self-appellation does not coincide with language and, last but not least, it is one thing for you to be a representative of a given being, and even of a given culture, and it is quite an another thing for you to prefer to exist in a given culture and to hold to express yourself through it.

Power is the ability or the right of a man or of a formation of socium to fulfil some will which directs the human activity towards achieving of a definite aim. Power also is called such a man, such a formation or its representative. Every power ensues from a person or from a formation of the socium and always is realized at least over one (at least over the own) or over more persons or formations of the socium. The state is a formation of socium, which possesses the supreme power over itself and over the territory occupied by it. Since the people is determined by consciousizing the sameness of the being origin, and the nation is determined by consciousizing the unity of the will to exist and develop the culture growing upon the being of a given people, usually the state is a direct result of differentiating of the nation, which is engendered by the corresponding people. For example, Article 1 of the Constitution of the present Bulgarian state, as an exponent and confirmation of its mononationality may be formulated in the following way: “Bulgaria is a balanced republic of free citizens. United by the national ideals and by the Bulgarian state they form the kernel of the Bulgarian nation. The sovereignty of Bulgaria belongs to its citizens that exercise it by their periodically elected representatives or by means of referendum.” It is a question of a state system and interstate agreements whether the state is to be mononational, such as Bulgaria is, or to be polynational, as for instance are Serbia, with recognized national minorities and a dominant nation, and Switzerland, with recognized ethnic cantonal structure without domination. In such a manner is determined whether the position of some of the ethnic communities in a given state are to have a status of a national minority, as for example is the status of the Bulgarians in Serbia. Quite different is the question about the smaller or the larger differences in the way of living and the customs among the folk that form a people. For example, small are the differences between Gornentci (inhabitants of the upper settlements) and Dolnentci (inhabitants of the lower settlements) living to the north of the town of Chirpan, and bigger are the differences among Thrakiitci (the natives of Thrace), Dobroudgiantci (the natives of Dobroudgia), Severniatci (the natives to the north of the Balkan), Timokchantci (the natives near the river Timok), Shoppi (the natives from Sofia to the river Bulgarian Morava), Macedonians, Pomaks and Poturnaks within the Bulgarian people. Fresh are the scars of the attempts of Comintern to liquidate the Bulgarian nation by disuniting the Bulgarian people itself in “Thracian”, “Dobroudgian” and “Macedonian” “nations”. Recently, our kinless politicians also have supported the tendentious lies against Bulgaria that in it there are “ethnic Turks”, i.e. folk by origin Turks, that the Pomaks are a separate ethnos, i.e. folk of another and not of the Bulgarian people, that Turks in Bulgaria are all having Turkish self-awareness, as for example, the Turkomaniac Pomaks, Gipsies etc. But the historical information, the race features, the mentality, the characters and customs of the Bulgarian Poturnaks unambiguously show that they, as the rest Bulgarians also are an alloy of ancient inhabitants of the Balkans and are quite different from the Turks that came later on, who are proper Turks by origin. The contrast appears most clearly in juxtaposing the treatment of our Poturnaks-emigrants in Turkey to us and to the native Turks around them. The unprejudiced research worker can not but see, that although for one reason or another these emigrants had been simply kicked out of Bulgaria and had left it with a Turkish self-awareness, only in Turkey they had felt how much they are proper Bulgarians in reality, and because of that almost without exception they keep incredibly good feelings towards Bulgarians and Bulgaria, while along with this they do not hide their treatment of delimiting from the native Turks.

Nationalism is the natural striving of every nation to differentiate and develop itself in the process of emulation among all nations of the uniting humanity. Nationalist is every representative of a given nation who comprehends its strivings and manifests a will for realization of these strivings. Cosmopolitism is the natural striving of the humanity to unite and develop itself in the process of emulation among all folk. Cosmopolitan is every man who comprehends its strivings and manifests a will for realization of these strivings.

Whenever some of these strivings acquire any kind of unilateralness there arise unavoidable conflicts in the development of human society. An example of such a conflict at the highest level is the conflict between the already mentioned imperial nationalism of the USA and the reviving nationalism of the other nations after the end of the Cold War. On a lower level are the conflicts engendered by a unilateralness between the strivings of nations immediately competing themselves in their own development. An example of such unilateralness are the unfounded pretensions of the present Greek nation to be the only inheritor of the ancient Greeks, of the ancient Macedonians and of the Byzantine Empire. As is well known, from its origin in 1821 Greece repudiates the fact of almost full slavicizing of the Balkan peninsula during the 6-th and the 7-th centuries, which spread over the lands of ancient Hellas as well, that never extended to the north of the Olympic Mountains. But as much as the present Greeks are inheritors of the ancient Greeks, no less we Bulgarians also are inheritors of the ancient Thracians and Illyrians, among which is the Thracian-Illyrian tribe of the ancient Macedonians as well. The diatribes of Demosthenes and the subjugating of Hellas by Macedonians testify for the essential difference between the ancient Greeks and the ancient Macedonians. Teacher of Alexander Macedonian was by no chance Aristotle who the Hellenes had not recognized as their citizen and had called him “Stagirite” according to the name of his native town Stagira, which was in the Macedonian lands. As for the inheriting of the ancient Greek culture, its first disciples were the ancient Romans through whom this culture was taken by all Europe and thence by the entire world. And which among the present European nations was the first to develop further the Greek-Roman civilization in an adequate of its spirit qualitative new culture? Undoubtedly, this was the Bulgarian nation that initiated the contemporary Slavic civilization. That is why, when we are speaking of the inheritors of the Roman Empire and more especially of the Byzantine Empire, the present Bulgarian nation cannot be put after the present Greek nation.

Long, glorious and tragic is the history of the Bulgarian nation. It is especially tragic in the new time, when the largest people on the Balkans has become a plaything of external for it agencies and because of our insufficient solidarity, our excessive tolerance and our naivety to the point of imbecility to trust to a debulgarianized ruling stratum, we have surrounded our state with Bulgarians that we are trying to forget. As an example I shall indicate only the diagnosis and the cure of the great wound that the expansive Greeks and Serbians made on the body of the Bulgarian nation in Macedonia:

The Macedonians are part of the Bulgarian people but the Macedonists among them form already an intentionally created in the twentieth century Macedonian nation that further can develop and differentiate itself as a separate nation first of all on the base of anti-Bulgarism. Because of that the attempts to cure Macedonism with anti-Macedonism only inflame this wound. The Bulgarian nation can overcome the anti-Bulgarism of the Macedonists not by anti-Macedonism but only by politics of removing of all barriers artificially and wittingly placed between the two nations, and by a categorical and unchanging support of the idea about indivisibility of divided Macedonia as we also support the idea about indivisibility of divide Bulgaria.

On the lowermost and concrete level are the conflicts among the representatives of a given nation engendered by unilateralness between the national and the cosmopolitan strivings on it. These within the nation conflicts unavoidably are interwoven with the conflicts for a fair constitution of the society and all they are reflected upon the political fights for the power in the respective state. Analogically the international conflicts, in their own turns, are interwoven with the conflicts for a fair constitution of the humanity and all they are reflected on the political fights for its development. And the political fights during the twentieth century are mostly characterized with the rise and the drastic collapse of the world communist system. It fell down by itself for the sake of destroying of the persons in it and first of all in its ruling stratum. The liberated from the system states got in heritage nationally depersonalized citizens and an excessively state-owned social wealth, which is convenient for plundering. At that, the striving towards plundering unbridled by national nihilism in the former communist countries is combined with the unjammed national differentiation in them and in plain sight of everybody have disintegrated the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and even Czechoslovakia, were the relations between nations were the most tolerant. Then it was seen, that the more a country is uncivilized, the more its disintegration and respectively plundering of the social wealth in it is destructive. Thus many of these countries started to the self-destroying them economy of a Latin-American kind, rather than to a perspective social market economy.

Our newest history represents a glaring illustration for breaking the balance between the national and cosmopolitan strivings in a nation. In the second half of the nineteenth century our neighbours Rumanians, Serbians and Greeks already had gained themselves states with their own rulers. But in spite of their example and the great deed of Levski, we Bulgarians did not become worthy of such a fate. Then our state was restored by external agencies that dismemberred the Bulgarian nation and right away they imposed themselves as a durable factor in our political life by the monarch-foreigner. The joinning of the two Bulgarian states in 1885 and its defending in the Serbian-Bulgarian war succeeded only because it became early enough before the worm of the external influences destroyed the Bulgarian national traits amid the leaders of the our state. Later already even the flashing victories of the eager Bulgarian soldiers were gambled away in heavy political defeats and national crashes of our debulgarianized politicians.

For the further debulgarianization of our ruling stratum a great contribution also had the regime of communists who ever since their ideological conception were obdurate kinlessers. But pay attention that among the satellite rulers in the Camp ours win indisputably the competition in kinlessness! It is enough to mention our advance with the “Leader” and the “Teacher”, who had already become “Honoured Leader and Teacher of the world proletariat” before he stood at the head of us, to mark the unprecedented in the world history forcibly denationalization of our citizens and to end with the strains to grow up to be the serial allied republic of the predominant. Isn’t it significant that the other repressed nations found more successful modes to defend themselves than we managed to do this?!

The simultaneous commencement of the transition of dozens countries from state monopoly to natural contemporary development shows, that the degree of unscrupulousness in the plundering of the social wealth is in direct ratio to the degree of diskinlessness of the ruling stratum to the respective country. According to the results of the hitherto existing race our red-blue ruling stratum persuasively leads in this competition also. Thus in our country is confirmed a state mafia besides the usual mafia as well.

The usual mafia is an illegal alliance of folk with non-accepted sense of values, who are unscrupulous for it applying in their benefit. In contrast to it the state mafia is an alliance of ruling stratum, which is unscrupulous to legalize its ruling in its own benefit. Despite their different status toward the laws adopted in the society, the to kinds of mafia always are closely tied each with the other and mutually are penetrated each other because of the prevailing egoism in the sense of value in both of them.

Unfortunate is the fact that for us is not enough to become conscious of our national interest even after ruining the country in peace time by the criminally taking shape Bulgarian oligarchy lasting for many years. And even after ambitiously failing Videnov and Kostov it again manages to make a fool of us with slogans as “democracy”, “anti-communism” and “civilizational choice”. Because of that its puppets put through unpunished the anti-Bulgarian politics of:

1. Plundering of the goods that all we had created during the totalitarian time, by ruining of the former social enterprises.

2. Impairing of the sovereignty of Bulgaria, by selling out and often by giving away of our strategic enterprises to foreigners, and generally by blindly executing the directions of the new “Big White Brother” only to be in power.

3. Concocted “changes” of politicians, decorated with arsons and routs in the centre of the Capital, with “chasing of the corruption” and other such performances, in which their orderers remain “dry”, and the desperate young folk in a mass look for their rescuing in foreign parts.

Saying it otherwise, we cannot come right until we do not bring ourselves to hold our anti-Bulgarian rulers responsible and do not remove the swindle laws that had imposed to us, to make it possible for us to begin effectively work and to get by ourselves out of our present humiliating condition.

2001-05-24, 1.

DISCUSSION OF 4.1.2.