Under Liberal order, internationalism is only an intensified nationalism

Under Liberal order, internationalism is only intensification of nationalism

（Provocative for mainstream, Garrulous trite for any genuine thinker）

Cited from Heidegger, this thought can be traced into almost every modern yet non-Marxian thinker per se.

I. What is Liberal Order

1. Liberalism, commonly understood, as a certain configuration of political arrangement.

2. Liberalism, its essential meaning is distribution of material goods. Heidegger: “The essence of materialism does not consist in the assertion that everything is simply matter, but rather in a metaphysical determination that every being appears as the material of labor.”) Clearly demonstrated by the central concerns of those classical liberalists. Read Ricardo, Adam Smith, alongside with Hobbes, Locke.

3. Thus the profound error of (I.1.) stems from the consistent yet misleading use of word “politics”. Liberal order does not revolutionize basic laws of material goods (capital), but the very place of material goods occupies in politics, (Arendt& Leo Strauss rarely agrees with each other) thus changes the defnition of “politics”. Analyze Utilitarianism with Aristotle.

4. The result of identification of happiness with material goods: human nature as self-preservation. Its origin in the downgrading of humanitas into animal rationale. Thus, the perception of nature and man as standing-reserve.

II. Cosmopolitan Movement: from Classical Liberalism to Karl Marx

1. Nationalism

a) Nationalism commonly believed, as the conservative value aiming at preserving We and excluding Other. This is true only in so far nationalism ontically contains vestiges of classical order fighting in vain against the universality of liberalism. eg. the white against the black, the yellow against the white and the black. All these should become "senseless" under liberal order - among livestokcs, we know for a long time, color matters not.

b) Nationalism, the essence being a historical movement, which decides destiny of western civilization thereafter: Nationalism decides the doom of nationalism itself and the triumph of “Internationalism”: During 15th-16th centuries, the rise of state, the monarchy and following the problematization of “wealth of state” over everything else – foremost excluding God, the transcendence back then.

2. Internationalism: Insidious triumph of K.Marx:

Marx being the highest stage and completion of liberalism, far from its “criticism”

a) humanitas as homo faber: Affirming, at the very beginning (1844), the problem of productivity and economic activity as the highest human activity. Technological humanity in its radical form

b) Same liberal goal of universal human prosperity in production: Marx is the inverted Ricardo political economy (Foucault): the human emancipation finished not in the fulfillment of human freedom in proportion to development of production, but the increasing suffer and misery of labor with prosperous and abundant production that will be reversed in the last moment by awakened “Class Consciousness” and “Total Revolution”: Human Emancipation.

Thus the essence of Internationalism is 1. the overcoming of Nationalism's inner obstacle: vestiges of "classical", and 2. the universalization of the order of rank, homogenization of "happiness of Englishman" which is precisely established by Nationalism.

III. The Advent of Last Man.

So far is provocative enough for both Enlgish and Chinese mainstreams.