Sometimes it's nice to think and understand the meaning of the key concepts that underlie the existence of human society. In particular, such as "people" and "nationality". These are fundamental definitions, without a clear understanding of which it is impossible to understand the patterns by which human society lives and develops.
What the classics say about this
General ideas about national identity have been different in different historical eras. According to modern, encyclopedically verified definitions, a nationality is a community of people formed from clans and tribes that historically lived in a certain territory. Nationalities are characterized by the unity of language, customs and common traditional culture, which can vary within certain limits. In accordance with the classical materialistic theories of social development, it is generally accepted that the peoples of the world originated at the time of the transition from the historical tribal era to the slave-owning and feudal types of society. It is characteristic here that there are territories on earth, primarily in Equatorial Africa and South America, where people live in a tribal system. They never formed into certain nationalities.
Nations and nationalities
With the development of trade and handicraft production, the capitalist system is gradually being formed. With the development of capitalism, changes in the social structure occur, the concepts of national identity are significantly expanded. The people, united by statehood, form a single nation. It should be noted here that two or more nationalities can live and develop peacefully within a single state. The concepts of nation and nationality are very close, but not always completely identical. A nation can include several ethnic groups, and a state can include several nations. The existence of one state within their borders is impossible without a language understandable to all and a single cultural space.
Russian Empire
The Russian state, as its geographical borders expanded, absorbed many large and small nationalities that historically lived in the territories annexed to the empire. The main state-forming people has always been Russian. But all the numerous nationalities of Russia as part of the empire were not only not in an oppressed position, but also received an opportunity for national development and progress. In terms of the complexity of its ethnic composition, the Russian Empire had no equal in the history of human civilization. Only ancient Rome could compete with it in this respect. In the imperial understanding of state building, each nationality is an integral part of a single whole.
Soviet Union
The national policy of the Soviet period of history was complex and contradictory. During the Stalin era, some nations were subjected to repression and migration from their historically occupied territories. In many ways, Soviet nationality policy echoed the best traditions of the Russian Empire. The cultural policy of the Soviet Union was completely unique, from the point of view of which each nationality is not just part of a single whole, but also something unique. This was expressed in the financing and development of the culture of small peoples. But the most important difference was that the largest nationalities of Russia received their state formations in the form of union and autonomous republics as part of a single state. This approach has brought the legal basis for the future destruction of the unified state. During the collapse of the Soviet Union, its collapse took place exactly along the borders of the allied states.
Global Trends
In modern national and social development, two, at first glance, seemingly mutually exclusive trends can be distinguished. This is nationalism and internationalism. Modern industrial production is increasingly acquiring an international character. Such processes of global integration cannot but influence the way of life of different peoples. Both the style of life and the level of consumption of material goods are becoming more and more unified and leveled out. But at the same time, the features of national culture and identity are leveled and destroyed. And that can't be considered positive.trend. And it is meeting with increasing rejection from many social groups. But even an attempt to build a strategy of social development on the basis of nationalism does not lead to any positive results. Existence in isolation and autarky inevitably leads to decay and degradation of society and the state. The best option for social development is to build a middle line between the two existing concepts. They are not mutually exclusive.
