Cosmopolitanism versus nationalism-world state versus nation-state
I would like to go back specifically to cosmopolitanism, internationalism or globalism and the nation-state. For Marx, the nation-state was a historical advance compared to the small state, so far understandable from his time. Conversely, as a result of nationalism and imperialism, one learned about its destructive power, which also culminated in world wars and the Holocaust. A higher climax no longer seemed possible. Nevertheless, the USA, which liberated Europe, was also a nation-state. Therefore, the nation-state is not bad per se and the equation of the nation-state with nationalism is questionable, since it depends more on the internal structure and the willingness of its political personnel and elites, including their population, to work multilaterally with other nation-states or groupings of states.
But that was not the only lesson: Communism was also a totalitarian aberration, supposedly internationalist, but despite everything, not a large communist world state was decided between the new communist states and the Soviet Union, even Mao-China and Stalin-Soviet Union did not merge in a common unity, even nationality and nation-state was preserved in the Warsaw Bloc, but then the Communists also split up in nationalist quarrels, be it the Soviet Union versus China, Vietnam versus Cambodia, there were umpteen splinters such as Hodscha-Albania, Ceaucesucu-Romania, Tito-Yugoslavia, Italian Eurocommunism, the latter two being the more sympathetic reformist variants to their totalitarian other versions.
The EU, the multilateral institutions that primarily created the USA to promote the pax americana, were the only more global institutions. But the unipolar world moment of the USA for an end of history ala Fukuyama was gambled away by the Iraq war in 2003, also showed by Bush jr. What madness and hubris democracy can produce and how the liberal world model disavowed itself. Trump is just the logical consequence of Bush jr. Nevertheless, it has to be said that the larger cosmopolitan, multicultural associations have failed, be it the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia. The majority of the world with the exception of the EU is still organized by the nation-state, even the EU is not a United States of Europe, but nation-states are still dominant, yes, the EU is torn apart in its hybrid existence between these two poles, for the USA, Russia, India, China and for most states, the nation-state still has the essential role to play, even if it is announced in Germany or within the EU that the era of the nation-state is over. This, on the one hand, as a fact, on the other hand, the pacified nation-state Germany, which sees its salvation in the EU and NATO and as a world export champion without military or technological hard power, should not be seen as a yardstick for international constellations.
In addition, one should see that the majority of the so-called German racism and nationalism stems from the fact that the German welfare state is still based on a nation-state basis and people are more afraid that immigration and burdens on the German social security funds will also affect the German subjects to their disadvantage. Now you can say: then increases taxes for the rich to finance this or expropriates all rich, but according to the experience of communism, most are not willing to do this., perhaps support higher taxes for Rich people, but not more, and neither can you increase them forever, otherwise companies will migrate and economic growth will decrease. Now one can say international transaction tax, etc., but this presupposes the pressure of an international movement, which is at best a 1-5 demands movement and especially reformist. Most parts of the population are aware of the fact that there is a nation-state and that there is a lack of perspective and the prospect of success for cosmopolitan or world-state solutions.
And when Sarah Wagenknecht demands a limit on immigration based on the limits of German financial capacities, she has this nationminded consciousness of the people in mind, since she knows that 1 million refugees mean 15% AfD, 2 million 25% AfD and everything that goes beyond that, which makes AfD a ruling party, including fascist dictatorship and ethnic displacement, so no one would be helped. These are two elements: one is the economic, the German welfare state, the other is cultural and ideological. Whether migration culturally and identically does not relativize or replace the liberal values or the perceived Germanisness as a majority population or a familiar leading culture, the question is what is meant by cosmopolitanism and how can it be related to internationalism, globalism and nationalism or other possible models such as major regional associations such as defining Eurasianism or seeing similarities and also the relationship to the nation-state. Can you really believe that the world is ready for a world state, a world federation, cosmopolitan unions, Eurasianism, a unipolar or multipolar world with several key nation-states or regional groups of states as a center, the G 20 as a new center of multilateral cooperation or whatever? What vision or imagination are possible besides abstract invocations of cosmopolitan world revolutions? On the one hand, you have to come up with solutions that go beyond the current consciousness of the population, on the other hand, you also have to see clearly that the dominant consciousness is to have the sparrow in your hand rather than the pigeon on the roof.