Abstract
The aim of the article is to elucidate the impact of Marxism and Nationalism on modernization processes in Eastern Europe from the perspective of their formation and mutual influence. Research methods: synthesis, induction, analysis, retrospective. Main results. During research we studied programs of both ideologies and compared their distinctive traits. Through analysis oftheoretical patterns of nationalism movements, different theories of public modernization and European point of view about backwardness, we found that Nationalism and Marxism significantly diverged around the role of statehood in culture and political changes. For Nationalism – state was the main aim and, simultaneously, result of nationalist movement activity. Further progress of nation was related to national state, which could provide certain conditions for cultural and economic development. Statehood in Marxists views was unwelcome; changes in society were related to social revolutionary movements without creation new state formations. State’s participation in transformation processes was, in theory, different for both ideologies. But when communists seized a power in the former Russian Empire, they faced a necessity of making their own statehood with its national policy. In fact, Nationalism became an artificial method on the way towards modernization of society. In conclusion, Eastern Europe modernization happened due to unification of communist and nationalist political thought. Scientific novelty of the paper is explained by analysis of works by Austrian Marxists, who made a theory for Soviet national policy. We explain this point by comparing some Austrian ideas to J. Stalin’s view on national question. The author also advocates the idea of existence some nationalistic traits during socialistic modernization in the USSR. Practical value of the research is a creation of background for studying Soviet ideology from new point of view. Type of article: empirical research.
Highlights
Main results: During research we studied programs of both ideologies and compared their distinctive traits
Through analysis of theoretical patterns of nationalism movements, different theories of public modernization and European point of view about backwardness, we found that Nationalism and Marxism significantly diverged around the role of statehood in culture and political changes
Реалізація ідей досягнення соціалізму та комунізму в рамках суспільства, яке не було готове до подібних трансформацій, за допомогою держави, якої не мало б існувати в теорії, склало сутність східноєвропейського подолання відсталості
Summary
Спільною рисою, яка була загальною для національних рухів всіх тогочасних європейських етносів, була ідея прогресу. Що існує необхідність розмежування стадій національного відродження (revival) в європейських народів ХІХ ст., з точки зору культурного розвитку, хоча натяк про об’єктивність існування націй до часу виникнення національного руху (пробудження нації, а не її виникнення) видається надто суперечливим та дискусійним. Ліст не лише бачив взаємний зв’язок між економікою і політикою – для нього, як і для Маркса, політекономія була елементом значно ширшої інтелектуальної системи, світогляду (Weltanschauung), найзагальнішого бачення історії і суспільства, нарешті – частиною його програми побудови майбутнього.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
