Actually "civilizational states" is pretty much the exact opposite of ethno-nationalism or ethno-states. In the ideology of the people who use that term, a "civilizational state" is a state like Russia, China, India, Iran, etc. that is explicitly a multi-ethnic, possibly also multi-religious state that is based on some abstract shared "civilization", whatever that means (i find the concept vague and ill-defined but that's another matter, i'm just explaining what they mean when they use this term). It's the opposite of the nation state concept pushed by the West where they seek to balkanize states like Russia and China along ethnic, linguistic and religious lines. According to this view, the West are actually the fascists as they're ones pushing for ethno-states.
So for me it's not fascism, certainly not in the classical sense, but it's also not Marxism or any kind of a coherent materialist world view.
We like to joke about factionalism on the left, but try putting 5 conservatives/MAGA "communists" in the same room to define what "woke" or "globalism" means and you'll end up with 7 definitions and more than a few grudges
So, after giving it some thought, i think you're probably right, in the sense that the idea of a "civilization" is an inherently assimilationist one. It's just a fact that countries like Russia (as well as the USSR before it) and China, although they are a composite of different nations/ethnic groups, do tend to assimilate these groups into a larger supra-national culture. The USSR did this with the attempt to create the "Homo Sovieticus", a "Soviet identity" to supersede (but not replace) national identities.
I don't think this is inherently something bad or wrong, nor does it have to clash with national self-determination, it just depends how you do it. And there is perhaps some validity to the argument that if you don't create a kind of over-arching culture which binds a country like this together that you risk it breaking apart along national lines, to the benefit of imperialist powers which are always going to seek to drive wedges between peoples, to "divide and conquer".
Far more problematic imo is when this impulse is turned outwards as in the case of the US. The US are arguably the only state in the West that would qualify as "civilizational" rather than a European-style nation state (there's no "US nation"). Unfortunately it's one that suffers from a collective messianic delusion. It views itself as essentially a crusader state (my impression is that this is intrinsically linked to its settler legacy), a unique chosen people with a holy mission of making sure they are the only such state in the world, eradicating all other civilizations and remaking the world in their image.
They cannot and will never be able to tolerate other "civilizational states" existing and will always seek to break them up in order to create a civilizational vaccum into which they can insert their own - their own culture, their own values, and eventually even their own language. Like they did in Europe and many other parts of the world (Japan, occupied Korea, Philippines, etc.).
I know this isn't exactly a Marxist analysis but it was the best i could do trying to give this concept of the "civilization state" the benefit of the doubt. I thought i may as well try to see if i can get some value out of it, maybe to provide a different perspective from which to view things. I'm still not convinced it's all that useful. It still has major, glaring gaps as an analytic framework compared to a proper dialectical materialist analysis, in particular on the class front.
Taliban flag. Also note its not internationalist, but in favor of “large civilizational states,” ie ethno nationalism, classic fascism.
Actually "civilizational states" is pretty much the exact opposite of ethno-nationalism or ethno-states. In the ideology of the people who use that term, a "civilizational state" is a state like Russia, China, India, Iran, etc. that is explicitly a multi-ethnic, possibly also multi-religious state that is based on some abstract shared "civilization", whatever that means (i find the concept vague and ill-defined but that's another matter, i'm just explaining what they mean when they use this term). It's the opposite of the nation state concept pushed by the West where they seek to balkanize states like Russia and China along ethnic, linguistic and religious lines. According to this view, the West are actually the fascists as they're ones pushing for ethno-states.
So for me it's not fascism, certainly not in the classical sense, but it's also not Marxism or any kind of a coherent materialist world view.
Marxism is internationalist but supports the self determination of every nation. These people probably just believe in assimilationism.
I don't know what they believe, and i don't think they know for sure either. I think they're a little confused.
We like to joke about factionalism on the left, but try putting 5 conservatives/MAGA "communists" in the same room to define what "woke" or "globalism" means and you'll end up with 7 definitions and more than a few grudges
Sounds about right.
So, after giving it some thought, i think you're probably right, in the sense that the idea of a "civilization" is an inherently assimilationist one. It's just a fact that countries like Russia (as well as the USSR before it) and China, although they are a composite of different nations/ethnic groups, do tend to assimilate these groups into a larger supra-national culture. The USSR did this with the attempt to create the "Homo Sovieticus", a "Soviet identity" to supersede (but not replace) national identities.
I don't think this is inherently something bad or wrong, nor does it have to clash with national self-determination, it just depends how you do it. And there is perhaps some validity to the argument that if you don't create a kind of over-arching culture which binds a country like this together that you risk it breaking apart along national lines, to the benefit of imperialist powers which are always going to seek to drive wedges between peoples, to "divide and conquer".
Far more problematic imo is when this impulse is turned outwards as in the case of the US. The US are arguably the only state in the West that would qualify as "civilizational" rather than a European-style nation state (there's no "US nation"). Unfortunately it's one that suffers from a collective messianic delusion. It views itself as essentially a crusader state (my impression is that this is intrinsically linked to its settler legacy), a unique chosen people with a holy mission of making sure they are the only such state in the world, eradicating all other civilizations and remaking the world in their image.
They cannot and will never be able to tolerate other "civilizational states" existing and will always seek to break them up in order to create a civilizational vaccum into which they can insert their own - their own culture, their own values, and eventually even their own language. Like they did in Europe and many other parts of the world (Japan, occupied Korea, Philippines, etc.).
I know this isn't exactly a Marxist analysis but it was the best i could do trying to give this concept of the "civilization state" the benefit of the doubt. I thought i may as well try to see if i can get some value out of it, maybe to provide a different perspective from which to view things. I'm still not convinced it's all that useful. It still has major, glaring gaps as an analytic framework compared to a proper dialectical materialist analysis, in particular on the class front.
You tend to give too much benefit of the doubt to these types. I agree with the analysis though.