O documentare prospectiva despre Dughin-9 aprilie 2014
Un Prospectiv Pana am sa gasesc ceva autorat de Dughin, iata-i un profil facut de "ANTON
BARBASHIN, a Moscow-based international relations researcher and analyst, and HANNAH THOBURN, a Eurasia analyst at the Foreign Policy Initiative.
Anton Barbashin and Hannah Thoburn | Alexander Dugin and the
Philosophy Behind Putin's Invasion... foreignaffairs.com
Vasile Codru
vezi pe inliniedreapta.net sunt zeci de articole,
prospecteaza...
Un.P Din comentarii:
Mark Sedgwick • 7 days ago
I am not so sure. Yes, post-Soviet Russia did need a new narrative, and
yes, today's Russia has found a new narrative, and yes, Dugin's
geopolitical views and neo-Eurasianism coincide with that narrative. But
I am not convinced that philosophy produces invasions. Vladimir Putin
has a brain of his own, and Russia has interests of her own, and
geography has a logic of its own. Catherine the Great did not need
neo-Eurasianism to conquer the Crimea in 1774. As a historian, I
generally find that ideology contributes to events of this kind, but
does not drive them. For more on Dugin and his background, see my blog http://traditionalistblog.blog....
Alex K. arvay • 5 days ago
The problem with Dugin's "ideas" is not that he is a Slavophile or Eurasianist. The trouble is, he is not an honest thinker and his "vision" is a vulgar, bastardized, crude rehash of ideas once put forward by people who were far more decent and better educated. In addition, Dugin strips those old ideas of any redeeming features they may have had in their earlier incarnations.
For example, Alexei Khomiakov, one of the original Slavophiles, believed that Russia's divine mission required that Russia cleanse itself of its "sins" - "slavery" (serfdom), "black injustice" (a rotten justice system), and social evils such as "deadly and shameful sloth". He also loathed Russia's taking pride in its military might and imperial splendor. A very different type from Dugin.
BING JOU arvay • 4 days ago
Dugin reminds you of Wannsee Conference? I just started reading about his arguments. There does not appear to carry a racist connotation. He is very clearly anti-American and atavistic, but fails to offer a new vision of world order. Dugin seems to believe that Europe will become closer to Russia and move away from the USA because Europe is sick and tired of American hegemony, but he did not mention how Russia will offer anything better than what the USA has been giving to Europe.
Many Chinese dream of the day China would share the world stage equally with the USA, but most of us know very well that we don't really have anything other nations covet. Not now anyway. We desperately try to create something appealing to others. Those nationalist idiots do live among us but few of us trust them. Does Dugin's idea look appealing to Russian folks?
BING JOU • 7 days ago
I can understand why Russia wants Crimea. This new Eurasianism is a surprise to me. It is not clear to me if the authors assert the neo-Eurasianists are a fringe group or in the mainstream. In some part, it is claimed that Putin is already a follower of neo-Eurasianism and Russians are embracing it. In the closing, it says that the chance of adopting it as a policy is increasing.
Every nation has her own idiots who are loud-mouthed but never able to appeal to the majority. I wonder if the authors overstate the importance of Chugin as an idiot. Well, only Russians can tell us.
ALEXIS PLESHCOY BING JOU • 5 days ago
Russia, as an Empire and later as a republic has always been a major power (call it regional, global, still a power). They look how they influenced Europe after the 1800’s (stopped Napoleon, participated in the Holy Alliance to stop Napoleon and 1848, millions died in WWI, 27 million people died to stop Germany in WWII, more millions died in the Revolution and the many purges that followed, forced communism on Eastern/Central Europe) and they feel they have gained the right to a say.
So in my opinion, this right to say, they called it pan Slavism, Christianity, Marxism-Leninism and now it could be called Eurasianism.
My favorite is by far when in 1815 the monarchs of Orthodox (Russia), Catholic (Austria) and Protestant (Prussia) promised to act on the basis of "justice, love and peace", both in internal and foreign affairs, creating the Holy Alliance. They crushed together the 1848 revolutions; please note that two Empires were part of the Enlightened West.
Mark Sedgwick • 7 days ago
I am not so sure. Yes, post-Soviet Russia did need a new narrative, and
yes, today's Russia has found a new narrative, and yes, Dugin's
geopolitical views and neo-Eurasianism coincide with that narrative. But
I am not convinced that philosophy produces invasions. Vladimir Putin
has a brain of his own, and Russia has interests of her own, and
geography has a logic of its own. Catherine the Great did not need
neo-Eurasianism to conquer the Crimea in 1774. As a historian, I
generally find that ideology contributes to events of this kind, but
does not drive them. For more on Dugin and his background, see my blog http://traditionalistblog.blog....
Alex K. arvay • 5 days ago
The problem with Dugin's "ideas" is not that he is a Slavophile or Eurasianist. The trouble is, he is not an honest thinker and his "vision" is a vulgar, bastardized, crude rehash of ideas once put forward by people who were far more decent and better educated. In addition, Dugin strips those old ideas of any redeeming features they may have had in their earlier incarnations.
For example, Alexei Khomiakov, one of the original Slavophiles, believed that Russia's divine mission required that Russia cleanse itself of its "sins" - "slavery" (serfdom), "black injustice" (a rotten justice system), and social evils such as "deadly and shameful sloth". He also loathed Russia's taking pride in its military might and imperial splendor. A very different type from Dugin.
BING JOU arvay • 4 days ago
Dugin reminds you of Wannsee Conference? I just started reading about his arguments. There does not appear to carry a racist connotation. He is very clearly anti-American and atavistic, but fails to offer a new vision of world order. Dugin seems to believe that Europe will become closer to Russia and move away from the USA because Europe is sick and tired of American hegemony, but he did not mention how Russia will offer anything better than what the USA has been giving to Europe.
Many Chinese dream of the day China would share the world stage equally with the USA, but most of us know very well that we don't really have anything other nations covet. Not now anyway. We desperately try to create something appealing to others. Those nationalist idiots do live among us but few of us trust them. Does Dugin's idea look appealing to Russian folks?
BING JOU • 7 days ago
I can understand why Russia wants Crimea. This new Eurasianism is a surprise to me. It is not clear to me if the authors assert the neo-Eurasianists are a fringe group or in the mainstream. In some part, it is claimed that Putin is already a follower of neo-Eurasianism and Russians are embracing it. In the closing, it says that the chance of adopting it as a policy is increasing.
Every nation has her own idiots who are loud-mouthed but never able to appeal to the majority. I wonder if the authors overstate the importance of Chugin as an idiot. Well, only Russians can tell us.
ALEXIS PLESHCOY BING JOU • 5 days ago
Russia, as an Empire and later as a republic has always been a major power (call it regional, global, still a power). They look how they influenced Europe after the 1800’s (stopped Napoleon, participated in the Holy Alliance to stop Napoleon and 1848, millions died in WWI, 27 million people died to stop Germany in WWII, more millions died in the Revolution and the many purges that followed, forced communism on Eastern/Central Europe) and they feel they have gained the right to a say.
So in my opinion, this right to say, they called it pan Slavism, Christianity, Marxism-Leninism and now it could be called Eurasianism.
My favorite is by far when in 1815 the monarchs of Orthodox (Russia), Catholic (Austria) and Protestant (Prussia) promised to act on the basis of "justice, love and peace", both in internal and foreign affairs, creating the Holy Alliance. They crushed together the 1848 revolutions; please note that two Empires were part of the Enlightened West.
Otla Pinnow • 7 days ago
I think one should not forget Oswald Spengler "Der Untergang des Abendlandes". According to him the 1.000 years period of European supremacy reached the end and will mount in a culture of fellaches like the other great cultures before.
He looked for a possible follower, a country with a people grewn out of the soil with a solid peasant base and not too much enculturated in cities and found - Russia.
Spengeler saw the possibility that Russia could rule the next 1.000 years als supreme culture.
There are of course some doubts in this theory but it should be quite attractve for the Russians.
ALEXIS PLESHCOY • 7 days ago
This is an interesting article and a good start in a personal journey of studying the world history for the past millennium.
The Internet provides a wealth of information, Wikipedia (or Encyclopedia Britannica), followed by Amazon books/movies, even Netflix, so academic titles are of lesser importance. It is a long journey, but based on how far I have traveled it, I have serious disagreements with the interpretations and generalizations in this article, too many to cover here.
Most and foremost, what Russia owes to itself is an explanation of Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jugashvili (also know as Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin) years. Once they answer to themselves what made those years possible, it is a great start in a journey to a better future.
ALEXANDROS SFIKAS • 6 days ago
"Putin began a battle against the liberal (Western) traits that some segments of Russian society had started to adopt. Moves of his that earned condemnation in the West -- such as the criminalization of “homosexual propaganda” and the sentencing of members of Pussy Riot, a feminist punk-rock collective, to two years in prison for hooliganism -- were popular in Russia."
Are these the traits you are hoping to win the world with? Good luck with that....
When someone starts to write an article for geopolitics and then refers to things that belong to gossip magazines, there isn't much else to comment on.
He immediately loses his credibility
This is an interesting article and a good start in a personal journey of studying the world history for the past millennium.
The Internet provides a wealth of information, Wikipedia (or Encyclopedia Britannica), followed by Amazon books/movies, even Netflix, so academic titles are of lesser importance. It is a long journey, but based on how far I have traveled it, I have serious disagreements with the interpretations and generalizations in this article, too many to cover here.
Most and foremost, what Russia owes to itself is an explanation of Ioseb Besarionis Dze Jugashvili (also know as Iosif Vissarionovich Stalin) years. Once they answer to themselves what made those years possible, it is a great start in a journey to a better future.
ALEXANDROS SFIKAS • 6 days ago
"Putin began a battle against the liberal (Western) traits that some segments of Russian society had started to adopt. Moves of his that earned condemnation in the West -- such as the criminalization of “homosexual propaganda” and the sentencing of members of Pussy Riot, a feminist punk-rock collective, to two years in prison for hooliganism -- were popular in Russia."
Are these the traits you are hoping to win the world with? Good luck with that....
When someone starts to write an article for geopolitics and then refers to things that belong to gossip magazines, there isn't much else to comment on.
He immediately loses his credibility
V.C e dement si
criminal, omul spuea in 98 ca Rusia asteata un Ivan cel Groaznic si el va fi
consilierul sau. In 2000 a anuntat ca a aparut...E si profesor la scoala
KGBFSBSVR
Un.P
Alex K. • 5 days ago
The Eurasianists of the 1920s were not the only Russians who saw Muscovy as a successor to the Mongol empire, and the Bolshevik revolution as a triumph of pre-Petrine Muscovy over the Petersburg empire. They stood out because they greeted. rather than deplored, the end of what is called "the Petersburg period" in Russia's history. Nourished and educated in the empire, they thought its destruction was necessary for a "genuine", "true", Eurasian Russia to emerge from the ruins.
I find that view repulsive, but its creators were remarkable individuals with achievement in other fields to their credit. Georgy Florovsky, who repudiated Eurasianism in 1928, went on to become a respected Eastern Orthodox theologian and historian of the church, teaching at Harvard and Princeton. Nikolai Trubetzkoy was a prominent linguist, a co-founder of the Prague school, a collaborator of Roman Jacobson and head of the Slavic department at the University of Vienna from 1923. Petr Suvchinsky, or Pierre Souvtchinsky, is remembered as a music critic, a friend of Stravinsky and an influence on Pierre Boulez.
In comparison, Dugin is a non-entity. I used to think of him as a post-modern clown and his presumed elevation to "Putin's brain" amazes and amuses me to no end. How can anyone take this buffoon seriously?
Alex K. • 5 days ago
The Eurasianists of the 1920s were not the only Russians who saw Muscovy as a successor to the Mongol empire, and the Bolshevik revolution as a triumph of pre-Petrine Muscovy over the Petersburg empire. They stood out because they greeted. rather than deplored, the end of what is called "the Petersburg period" in Russia's history. Nourished and educated in the empire, they thought its destruction was necessary for a "genuine", "true", Eurasian Russia to emerge from the ruins.
I find that view repulsive, but its creators were remarkable individuals with achievement in other fields to their credit. Georgy Florovsky, who repudiated Eurasianism in 1928, went on to become a respected Eastern Orthodox theologian and historian of the church, teaching at Harvard and Princeton. Nikolai Trubetzkoy was a prominent linguist, a co-founder of the Prague school, a collaborator of Roman Jacobson and head of the Slavic department at the University of Vienna from 1923. Petr Suvchinsky, or Pierre Souvtchinsky, is remembered as a music critic, a friend of Stravinsky and an influence on Pierre Boulez.
In comparison, Dugin is a non-entity. I used to think of him as a post-modern clown and his presumed elevation to "Putin's brain" amazes and amuses me to no end. How can anyone take this buffoon seriously?
V.C Un
specialst in contraspionaj explica http://20committee.com/.../putinism-and-the-anti-weird.../.
Un.P
Randall_S BING JOU • 6 days ago
You can start by looking here. There's a section on it, as well as a link to a book review with the quote.
In Foundations of Geopolitics, Dugin encourages Japan to establish its New Order in Asia.
http://nyyrc.com/.../geopolitik-russias-foreign-policy.../
Randall_S BING JOU • 6 days ago
You can start by looking here. There's a section on it, as well as a link to a book review with the quote.
In Foundations of Geopolitics, Dugin encourages Japan to establish its New Order in Asia.
http://nyyrc.com/.../geopolitik-russias-foreign-policy.../
gdoctorow • 4 days ago
As often happens these days, the problem is not with the authors but with the editors of FA who apply cute and misleading titles to otherwise unexceptional and perhaps unexciting texts by professionals. The authors state clearly that Putin has a brain of his own, hence the abusive editorial intervention in designating the piece as 'Putin's Brain: Alexander Dugin..."
Putin is using Dugin, not the other way around. It is a testimony to Putin's political skills that he has a great many thinkers and politicians of widely divergent persuasions eating from his hand. Whether it is a Gennady Zyuganov of the Communists or a Vladimir Ryzhkov of the nonsystemic opposition, they all swoon over Putin's well-crafted speeches or decisive actions.
Dugin's wild-eyed philosophisizing has been very nicely dealt within within the context of modern Eurasianism by Marlene Laruelle in "Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire." The whole lot of them are crackpots. You can give Dugin all the air time you like, but his unkempt looks, his weird statements are not likely to have much influence on the wide audience.
The relevance of the subject to our understanding of the confrontation over Ukraine and Crimea is zero. Another demonstration of the trivialization of deadly serious topics by the FA team
Alex K. gdoctorow • 3 days ago
"Putin is using Dugin, not the other way around."
Agreed. Putin probably sees Dugin for what he is, a charlatan. At least I would like to hope so.
"You can give Dugin all the air time you like, but his unkempt looks, his weird statements are not likely to have much influence on the wide audience." Possibly true, but crackpottery is not a barrier to success with Russian audiences.
As often happens these days, the problem is not with the authors but with the editors of FA who apply cute and misleading titles to otherwise unexceptional and perhaps unexciting texts by professionals. The authors state clearly that Putin has a brain of his own, hence the abusive editorial intervention in designating the piece as 'Putin's Brain: Alexander Dugin..."
Putin is using Dugin, not the other way around. It is a testimony to Putin's political skills that he has a great many thinkers and politicians of widely divergent persuasions eating from his hand. Whether it is a Gennady Zyuganov of the Communists or a Vladimir Ryzhkov of the nonsystemic opposition, they all swoon over Putin's well-crafted speeches or decisive actions.
Dugin's wild-eyed philosophisizing has been very nicely dealt within within the context of modern Eurasianism by Marlene Laruelle in "Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire." The whole lot of them are crackpots. You can give Dugin all the air time you like, but his unkempt looks, his weird statements are not likely to have much influence on the wide audience.
The relevance of the subject to our understanding of the confrontation over Ukraine and Crimea is zero. Another demonstration of the trivialization of deadly serious topics by the FA team
Alex K. gdoctorow • 3 days ago
"Putin is using Dugin, not the other way around."
Agreed. Putin probably sees Dugin for what he is, a charlatan. At least I would like to hope so.
"You can give Dugin all the air time you like, but his unkempt looks, his weird statements are not likely to have much influence on the wide audience." Possibly true, but crackpottery is not a barrier to success with Russian audiences.
Un.P
VLAD STEPANOV • 4 days ago
Putin and Dugin aren't that close to each other. Putin is pragmatic (he still thinks Crimea was worth it), while Dugin is a geopolitical alchemist.
VLAD STEPANOV • 4 days ago
Putin and Dugin aren't that close to each other. Putin is pragmatic (he still thinks Crimea was worth it), while Dugin is a geopolitical alchemist.
The Fourth Political Theory Alexandr Dugin
The Times Are a Changin'
By preroncallian on October 9, 2012
Format: Paperback Amazon Verified Purchase
If the French New Right or Traditionalist Metaphysics are your cup of tea. And, if you think that Americanism might be a threat to both meaning, measure and community, there is a world of new and original thinkers abounding who will ease your way out of the long irrelevant right - left dichotomy. Alexander Dugin is a major force among them. Whether they will be able to rally the forces of spirit, organic life and plain common sense against globalist, secularist totalitarians in time to save European man or, ineed, the planet itself, remains to be seen. Meantime, buy this book and step beyond Obama - Romney childishness.
Professor Alexander Dugin's somewhat confused introduction to Eurasianism
By The Northern Light on October 8, 2013
Format: Paperback
"Those who do not agree with liberalism find themselves in a difficult situation - the triumphant enemy has dissolved and disappeared; now they are left struggling against the air. How can one engage in politics, if there is no politics?" (page 12).
Alexander Dugin, presumably known to some from the overview of Traditionalism by Dr. Mark Sedgwick: Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century, and to others from his involvement in the European New Right, albeit on the periphery of this movement, as detailed in New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe and Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right. He is well-known in his homeland of Russia, both as a media and intellectual personality, moving in the high circles of his native Moscow, and according to some he's even got the ear of president Putin, on some issues. Russia is a complicated nation, being both very nationalist and at the same time highly multi-ethnic, in addition to being torn between liberalism and the alternatives to liberalism offered (at least in the past) by their own communist past and of course their traditional Orthodox national (imperial, if you will) position. Dugin, this stormer of the heavens, as he would be branded in the Germanic world, with this book attempts to move beyond these three deadlocked positions and come up with something "new", alas, the title of the book. Now, I do find the book to be very clever and Dugin is to be highly commended for his contribution, even though it isn't necessarily my cup of tea, which we'll get back to soon. Still, as Dugin points out, we live in grave times: "If Russia chooses 'to be', then it will automatically bring about the creation of a Fourth Political Theory. Otherwise, for Russia there remains only the choice 'not to be', which will mean quietly leave the historical and world stage, dissolving into a global order which is not created or governed by us" (page 14). Europe and more or less the entire world finds itself in the same situation, for it is indeed time to choose, shall we be Fighting for the Essence or shall we allow ourselves to descend into a world out of history, where there will surely live humans, but there won't be anyone around to read or care about history of the past or future variety.
Dugin is at his best when he in the fashion of Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (brilliant author of must-read Germany's Third Empire) smashes liberalism to pieces by pointing out that it is so omnipotent today that there isn't really any alternatives fighting against it. Of course, no liberals will admit to this, since it doesn't bode well for the future of liberalism, for without opponents, it will presumably implode like the other ideologies mentioned by Dugin. Still, although I completely understand where Dugin is coming from, when he talks about ethnicity and "racism", for example, I still feel he has gone far beyond being "tactic" and ventured far into the terrain of his would-be enemies. After having spent five pages (43-48) blabbering about "racism" in the historical Right, he rounds it off with a sentence such as: "Whatever the case may be, the ethnos and ethnocentrism [...] have every reason to be considered as candidates for becoming the subject of the Fourth Political Theory" (page 48). What are we as readers to make of this? Incidentally, this strikes the issue I have with the book to the core, for it constantly feels like Dugin can't really decide where he stands. Now, I get what he's trying to do, and I'll commend him for it once again, but still, he should have read the book of Van den Bruck again, for it doesn't seem to this reviewer that he's really taken the teachings of Van den Bruck to heart. That being said, Dugin emphasises again and again that the book is merely an outline of the Fourth Political Theory, and not written in stone. He invites the reader to take part in his Eurasian Movement and come up with other solutions, if they find them better. Yet, I feel he should have made the book more clearly monarchist, and left out a lot of the more "leftist" material.
Having listened to and dined with Dugin in Stockholm, I can vouch that he is indeed a very intelligent and it seems well-intended man, so I do recommend people read the book, and it will probably serve nicely as a introduction to his "non-ideological" ideology for those coming from conservative or leftist circles, but for those used to read the books of Evola (Revolt Against the Modern World), for example, the book will have little to offer, in my opinion. Therefore, five stars for trying, and three stars for content, leaves an average rating of four stars, for this interesting, but somewhat confused work, according to this grumpy monarchist.
Un.P By preroncallian on October 9, 2012
Format: Paperback Amazon Verified Purchase
If the French New Right or Traditionalist Metaphysics are your cup of tea. And, if you think that Americanism might be a threat to both meaning, measure and community, there is a world of new and original thinkers abounding who will ease your way out of the long irrelevant right - left dichotomy. Alexander Dugin is a major force among them. Whether they will be able to rally the forces of spirit, organic life and plain common sense against globalist, secularist totalitarians in time to save European man or, ineed, the planet itself, remains to be seen. Meantime, buy this book and step beyond Obama - Romney childishness.
Professor Alexander Dugin's somewhat confused introduction to Eurasianism
By The Northern Light on October 8, 2013
Format: Paperback
"Those who do not agree with liberalism find themselves in a difficult situation - the triumphant enemy has dissolved and disappeared; now they are left struggling against the air. How can one engage in politics, if there is no politics?" (page 12).
Alexander Dugin, presumably known to some from the overview of Traditionalism by Dr. Mark Sedgwick: Against the Modern World: Traditionalism and the Secret Intellectual History of the Twentieth Century, and to others from his involvement in the European New Right, albeit on the periphery of this movement, as detailed in New Culture, New Right: Anti-Liberalism in Postmodern Europe and Against Democracy and Equality: The European New Right. He is well-known in his homeland of Russia, both as a media and intellectual personality, moving in the high circles of his native Moscow, and according to some he's even got the ear of president Putin, on some issues. Russia is a complicated nation, being both very nationalist and at the same time highly multi-ethnic, in addition to being torn between liberalism and the alternatives to liberalism offered (at least in the past) by their own communist past and of course their traditional Orthodox national (imperial, if you will) position. Dugin, this stormer of the heavens, as he would be branded in the Germanic world, with this book attempts to move beyond these three deadlocked positions and come up with something "new", alas, the title of the book. Now, I do find the book to be very clever and Dugin is to be highly commended for his contribution, even though it isn't necessarily my cup of tea, which we'll get back to soon. Still, as Dugin points out, we live in grave times: "If Russia chooses 'to be', then it will automatically bring about the creation of a Fourth Political Theory. Otherwise, for Russia there remains only the choice 'not to be', which will mean quietly leave the historical and world stage, dissolving into a global order which is not created or governed by us" (page 14). Europe and more or less the entire world finds itself in the same situation, for it is indeed time to choose, shall we be Fighting for the Essence or shall we allow ourselves to descend into a world out of history, where there will surely live humans, but there won't be anyone around to read or care about history of the past or future variety.
Dugin is at his best when he in the fashion of Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (brilliant author of must-read Germany's Third Empire) smashes liberalism to pieces by pointing out that it is so omnipotent today that there isn't really any alternatives fighting against it. Of course, no liberals will admit to this, since it doesn't bode well for the future of liberalism, for without opponents, it will presumably implode like the other ideologies mentioned by Dugin. Still, although I completely understand where Dugin is coming from, when he talks about ethnicity and "racism", for example, I still feel he has gone far beyond being "tactic" and ventured far into the terrain of his would-be enemies. After having spent five pages (43-48) blabbering about "racism" in the historical Right, he rounds it off with a sentence such as: "Whatever the case may be, the ethnos and ethnocentrism [...] have every reason to be considered as candidates for becoming the subject of the Fourth Political Theory" (page 48). What are we as readers to make of this? Incidentally, this strikes the issue I have with the book to the core, for it constantly feels like Dugin can't really decide where he stands. Now, I get what he's trying to do, and I'll commend him for it once again, but still, he should have read the book of Van den Bruck again, for it doesn't seem to this reviewer that he's really taken the teachings of Van den Bruck to heart. That being said, Dugin emphasises again and again that the book is merely an outline of the Fourth Political Theory, and not written in stone. He invites the reader to take part in his Eurasian Movement and come up with other solutions, if they find them better. Yet, I feel he should have made the book more clearly monarchist, and left out a lot of the more "leftist" material.
Having listened to and dined with Dugin in Stockholm, I can vouch that he is indeed a very intelligent and it seems well-intended man, so I do recommend people read the book, and it will probably serve nicely as a introduction to his "non-ideological" ideology for those coming from conservative or leftist circles, but for those used to read the books of Evola (Revolt Against the Modern World), for example, the book will have little to offer, in my opinion. Therefore, five stars for trying, and three stars for content, leaves an average rating of four stars, for this interesting, but somewhat confused work, according to this grumpy monarchist.
a man among the ruins invites a conversation against liberalism and the modern world
By T. Kalamaras on January 3, 2014
Format: Paperback
Dugin invites the reader to his project of forming the "Fourth Political Theory," a new rival and successor to the preceeding three ideologies of the twentieth century- liberalism, communism, and fascism/ns; of which the second and third were defeated by the first, liberalism, which now is unopposed a la Fukuyama's "end of history."
He calls for the imagining of future values drawn with inspiration from the Eternal; and from Tradition, the source of timeless pre-modern values as antidote to the soul crushing, identity destroying consumerism and individualism of liberalism.
While his work principally concerns certain geopolitical considerations most important to Russia, it has relevance alike to the Far East, which still finds itself torn between modernity and tradition (as in Soseki's Kokoro) and to the EU and even America, which although the standard bearers of liberalism, remain increasingly atomized and torn between the increasing social divisions arising both in spite of and also out of the very individualism that has located them at a foremost position for the time being.
If nothing else it is an interesting expression of
contemporary syncretic anti-liberalism. Whether or not the evident call to
reconstruct a Golden age from this kali yuga is anything more than another cry
of a man among the ruins remains to be seen.
One of the Truly Essential Books of our young Century
By Shelia B. Cassidy on November 8, 2013
Format: Kindle Edition Amazon Verified Purchase
Most of the political theories that we now embrace are failing us. And even though this book was primarily directed at the Russian polity, it is significant for the rest of the world for many reasons.
First of all, this author is Putin's adviser, so we need to know where the thinking is coming from in the rest of the world.
Second, Dugin's political analysis applies just as well to the rest of the world.
Dugin says that we need a new political theory, that the 18th century liberalism that we have been operating from is no longer valid. He says that we should borrow from the past - religion and real values - and construct a new political theory that will engage these values and also update our societies to cope with the processes we now face. I agree with him. Liberalism grew out of the typographical era, when reading the printed word was king. We have long sense moved into the modern era of social media and computers and the Internet. We need to get to know one another better and quit regarding everyone as "the enemy of the month." This will entail electing political leaders that are more conscious of the global village and also the need for national identities as well. It's a good read and excellently translated. And it is an essential book!
One of the Truly Essential Books of our young Century
By Shelia B. Cassidy on November 8, 2013
Format: Kindle Edition Amazon Verified Purchase
Most of the political theories that we now embrace are failing us. And even though this book was primarily directed at the Russian polity, it is significant for the rest of the world for many reasons.
First of all, this author is Putin's adviser, so we need to know where the thinking is coming from in the rest of the world.
Second, Dugin's political analysis applies just as well to the rest of the world.
Dugin says that we need a new political theory, that the 18th century liberalism that we have been operating from is no longer valid. He says that we should borrow from the past - religion and real values - and construct a new political theory that will engage these values and also update our societies to cope with the processes we now face. I agree with him. Liberalism grew out of the typographical era, when reading the printed word was king. We have long sense moved into the modern era of social media and computers and the Internet. We need to get to know one another better and quit regarding everyone as "the enemy of the month." This will entail electing political leaders that are more conscious of the global village and also the need for national identities as well. It's a good read and excellently translated. And it is an essential book!
Un.P
The nihilistic fascism of Alexander Dugin, March 7, 2014
By Ashtar Command "Seeker" (Sweden) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Fourth Political Theory (Paperback)
"The Fourth Political Theory" is a book by Alexander Dugin, a Russian philosopher and political activist. He is sometimes referred to as a Traditionalist, at other times as an Eurasianist. Dugin is the leader of a small political party in Russia, the Eurasia Movement. More ominously, he is rumoured to be an advisor to Russian president Vladimir Putin. As far as I can tell, "The Fourth Political Theory" is the only book by Dugin translated to English. It's not an easy read, since the author writes in a difficult prose filled with references to Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, Deleuze and other thinkers not considered main stream. It took me about two weeks to sift through this material.
While Dugin claims to represent a striving to create a Fourth Political Theory beyond liberalism, socialism and fascism, I think it's obvious that he is a fascist. A nihilistic fascist, to be exact. While he pretends to oppose postmodernism, he is in fact heavily indebted to it for his own perspective. In Dugin's universe, there are no absolute truths. Each culture, nature or community is a (more or less) self-contained whole. Its worldview is purely subjective (even "time" and "past" are subjective concepts). Hence, no outsider can judge whether or not a certain culture is "right" or "wrong". Humans are constituted by "politics", by which Dugin seems to mean pre-existing hierarchies in each culture which inevitably moulds us into what we are. For this reason, Dugin rejects liberal individualism. Of course, this contradicts his claim that no absolute truths exists. There is at least one absolute truth in Dugin's system: the collective is everything, the individual nothing. How this squares with his claim that the most basic ontological category is the Radical Subject is unclear. The Radical Subject is, I suppose, individual. Dugin is well aware of his affinity with postmodernism. He wants to use postmodernism to further his own (fascist) agenda. The tolerance of postmodernism can be used to justify a multi-polar world in which "traditional" cultures can co-exist with each other, and (temporarily) with Anglo-American liberalism. The existence of classes and the left-right dichotomy is also denied in favour of a postmodernist-sounding perspective, according to which there is only "centre" and "periphery".
In a universe with no absolute truths, the will to power is central, and Dugin (unsurprisingly) believes that "geopolitics is epistemology" and that "the political" is fundamental. In plain English, Russian imperial expansionism is a good thing, and nothing meaningful can exist outside the imperial-hierarchic state. Of course, this is so only from a Russian perspective, but that's apparently irrelevant. War is a perennial condition of human existence. The author clearly wants the particular subjective perspective of his own tribe to win the day.
Since Hitler and the Nazis killed millions of Russians during World War II, Dugin has no choice but to repudiate Hitler's politics, especially his racism against Slav Untermenschen. At the same time, however, he is interested in the German current known as Conservative Revolution. His book contains a lot of references to "National Bolsheviks", who attempted to combine Communism and nationalism. Dugin makes the (admittedly interesting) observation that many Communist regimes were nationalist, and that National Bolshevism in all but name existed in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and so on. He claims that Communism as it looked like in practice wasn't really "modern", but a resurrection of archaic forms. Many critics of Stalin's Soviet Union or Mao's China have noticed similarities with the so-called Asiatic mode of production in ancient societies. Dugin agrees, but regards this as something positive! While rejecting liberalism, he wants to salvage the "positive" traits of both Communism (actually Stalin's regime) and fascism. This is a common project in Russia, where "Red-Brown Blocs" between Stalinists and right-wing nationalists (including fascists) were influential during the 1990's. Dugin himself was a founding member of the notorious National Bolshevik Party, but seems to have left the organization when it became too burlesque. (Today, the NBP is opposed to Putin, and Dugin actually accuses it of being in cahoots with Western intelligence services.) Although Dugin is included in Mark Sedgwick's seminal study of Traditionalism, "Against the Modern World", the Traditionalist traits of the Fourth Political Theory are incidental. Dugin is anti-modernist, and does mention Guénon and Evola. Yet, his covert postmodernism, relativism and nihilism are difficult to square with the Traditionalist insistence on an absolutely valid and universal esoteric truth.
Dugin is curiously oblivious to peak oil and peak uranium (perhaps because Russia has plenty of those natural resources?), and believes that postmodernism can actually succeed in creating a bizarre world dominated by "post-humans" and other "simulacra", apparently some kind of cyborgs. Both transhumanism and transgenderism are perceived as threats. When condemning LGBTQI, Dugin sounds more essentialist than relativist. However, resistance isn't futile, it seems. Here, Dugin has a voluntarist perspective. Humans can freely decide to resist the system, and thereby challenge and change their "fate". This is the will to power again. The step from this to gratuitous violence and terrorism is short.
Personally, I doubt that Vladimir Putin is listening to the gaga of Alexander Dugin. However, "The Fourth Political Theory" is interesting. It shows us the real face of fascism behind the ideological façade: nihilistic violence from the Supermen, just because they can. For more insight into this subject, see Shadia Drury's "Alexandre Kojève: The Roots of Postmodern Politics".
The nihilistic fascism of Alexander Dugin, March 7, 2014
By Ashtar Command "Seeker" (Sweden) - See all my reviews
This review is from: The Fourth Political Theory (Paperback)
"The Fourth Political Theory" is a book by Alexander Dugin, a Russian philosopher and political activist. He is sometimes referred to as a Traditionalist, at other times as an Eurasianist. Dugin is the leader of a small political party in Russia, the Eurasia Movement. More ominously, he is rumoured to be an advisor to Russian president Vladimir Putin. As far as I can tell, "The Fourth Political Theory" is the only book by Dugin translated to English. It's not an easy read, since the author writes in a difficult prose filled with references to Heidegger, Carl Schmitt, Deleuze and other thinkers not considered main stream. It took me about two weeks to sift through this material.
While Dugin claims to represent a striving to create a Fourth Political Theory beyond liberalism, socialism and fascism, I think it's obvious that he is a fascist. A nihilistic fascist, to be exact. While he pretends to oppose postmodernism, he is in fact heavily indebted to it for his own perspective. In Dugin's universe, there are no absolute truths. Each culture, nature or community is a (more or less) self-contained whole. Its worldview is purely subjective (even "time" and "past" are subjective concepts). Hence, no outsider can judge whether or not a certain culture is "right" or "wrong". Humans are constituted by "politics", by which Dugin seems to mean pre-existing hierarchies in each culture which inevitably moulds us into what we are. For this reason, Dugin rejects liberal individualism. Of course, this contradicts his claim that no absolute truths exists. There is at least one absolute truth in Dugin's system: the collective is everything, the individual nothing. How this squares with his claim that the most basic ontological category is the Radical Subject is unclear. The Radical Subject is, I suppose, individual. Dugin is well aware of his affinity with postmodernism. He wants to use postmodernism to further his own (fascist) agenda. The tolerance of postmodernism can be used to justify a multi-polar world in which "traditional" cultures can co-exist with each other, and (temporarily) with Anglo-American liberalism. The existence of classes and the left-right dichotomy is also denied in favour of a postmodernist-sounding perspective, according to which there is only "centre" and "periphery".
In a universe with no absolute truths, the will to power is central, and Dugin (unsurprisingly) believes that "geopolitics is epistemology" and that "the political" is fundamental. In plain English, Russian imperial expansionism is a good thing, and nothing meaningful can exist outside the imperial-hierarchic state. Of course, this is so only from a Russian perspective, but that's apparently irrelevant. War is a perennial condition of human existence. The author clearly wants the particular subjective perspective of his own tribe to win the day.
Since Hitler and the Nazis killed millions of Russians during World War II, Dugin has no choice but to repudiate Hitler's politics, especially his racism against Slav Untermenschen. At the same time, however, he is interested in the German current known as Conservative Revolution. His book contains a lot of references to "National Bolsheviks", who attempted to combine Communism and nationalism. Dugin makes the (admittedly interesting) observation that many Communist regimes were nationalist, and that National Bolshevism in all but name existed in the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and so on. He claims that Communism as it looked like in practice wasn't really "modern", but a resurrection of archaic forms. Many critics of Stalin's Soviet Union or Mao's China have noticed similarities with the so-called Asiatic mode of production in ancient societies. Dugin agrees, but regards this as something positive! While rejecting liberalism, he wants to salvage the "positive" traits of both Communism (actually Stalin's regime) and fascism. This is a common project in Russia, where "Red-Brown Blocs" between Stalinists and right-wing nationalists (including fascists) were influential during the 1990's. Dugin himself was a founding member of the notorious National Bolshevik Party, but seems to have left the organization when it became too burlesque. (Today, the NBP is opposed to Putin, and Dugin actually accuses it of being in cahoots with Western intelligence services.) Although Dugin is included in Mark Sedgwick's seminal study of Traditionalism, "Against the Modern World", the Traditionalist traits of the Fourth Political Theory are incidental. Dugin is anti-modernist, and does mention Guénon and Evola. Yet, his covert postmodernism, relativism and nihilism are difficult to square with the Traditionalist insistence on an absolutely valid and universal esoteric truth.
Dugin is curiously oblivious to peak oil and peak uranium (perhaps because Russia has plenty of those natural resources?), and believes that postmodernism can actually succeed in creating a bizarre world dominated by "post-humans" and other "simulacra", apparently some kind of cyborgs. Both transhumanism and transgenderism are perceived as threats. When condemning LGBTQI, Dugin sounds more essentialist than relativist. However, resistance isn't futile, it seems. Here, Dugin has a voluntarist perspective. Humans can freely decide to resist the system, and thereby challenge and change their "fate". This is the will to power again. The step from this to gratuitous violence and terrorism is short.
Personally, I doubt that Vladimir Putin is listening to the gaga of Alexander Dugin. However, "The Fourth Political Theory" is interesting. It shows us the real face of fascism behind the ideological façade: nihilistic violence from the Supermen, just because they can. For more insight into this subject, see Shadia Drury's "Alexandre Kojève: The Roots of Postmodern Politics".
Un.P
The Debaters: Olavo de Carvalho and Aleksandr Dugin
On March 7, 2011, Olavo de Carvalho, President of the Inter-
American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought, and
Aleksandr Dugin, leader of the International Eurasian Movement, started a
written debate on the topic “The USA and the New World Order.” The
debate ended on May 9, 2011. Professor de Carvalho is a philosopher
currently residing in the United States who has authored more than a dozen books and has been teaching an online philosophy co
urse to more than 2,000 international students since 2008. His book
Aristotle in a New Perspective (1996) has been acclaimed as a highly original cont ribution to the understanding of the Greek philosopher. Dugin is Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical strategist, leading organizer of the Eurasian Movement and considered the most influential Russian thinker of the post-Soviet era. His book, The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia (1997) has had a large influence on Russian military and foreign policy elites and has been adopted as a textbook in the General Staff Academy of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
http://theinteramerican.org/.../TheUSAandTheNewWorldOrder...
The Debaters: Olavo de Carvalho and Aleksandr Dugin
On March 7, 2011, Olavo de Carvalho, President of the Inter-
American Institute for Philosophy, Government, and Social Thought, and
Aleksandr Dugin, leader of the International Eurasian Movement, started a
written debate on the topic “The USA and the New World Order.” The
debate ended on May 9, 2011. Professor de Carvalho is a philosopher
currently residing in the United States who has authored more than a dozen books and has been teaching an online philosophy co
urse to more than 2,000 international students since 2008. His book
Aristotle in a New Perspective (1996) has been acclaimed as a highly original cont ribution to the understanding of the Greek philosopher. Dugin is Vladimir Putin’s geopolitical strategist, leading organizer of the Eurasian Movement and considered the most influential Russian thinker of the post-Soviet era. His book, The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia (1997) has had a large influence on Russian military and foreign policy elites and has been adopted as a textbook in the General Staff Academy of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation.
http://theinteramerican.org/.../TheUSAandTheNewWorldOrder...
Un.P Vasile Codru, iti
multumesc pentru suggestie. La ILD vad doar articolul lui Olavo de Carvalho in
sensul acesta, restul par a fi chestiuni tangentiale.
Cred ca-i cazul sa deschidem cartile si sa ne convingem la prima mana, altfel ruinam credibilitatea argumentului pierdut in spatele locurilor comune.
Din ce am spicuit pana acum, Dugin pare ca opereaza intr-o nisa a conservatorismului clasic, din care propulseaza un construct geo-strategic. Din punctul rusesc de vedere, care pare a fi al celui fript cu ciorba capitalismului neoliberal, poate fi legitim. Din punctul american de vedere, pare o fantezie, care poate extrage totusi un cost daca va capata aderenti in spatiul euro-asiatic. Din punctul de vedere romanesc, observ la momentul acesta ca opiniile sunt incalcite si rareori argumentate.
Cred ca-i cazul sa deschidem cartile si sa ne convingem la prima mana, altfel ruinam credibilitatea argumentului pierdut in spatele locurilor comune.
Din ce am spicuit pana acum, Dugin pare ca opereaza intr-o nisa a conservatorismului clasic, din care propulseaza un construct geo-strategic. Din punctul rusesc de vedere, care pare a fi al celui fript cu ciorba capitalismului neoliberal, poate fi legitim. Din punctul american de vedere, pare o fantezie, care poate extrage totusi un cost daca va capata aderenti in spatiul euro-asiatic. Din punctul de vedere romanesc, observ la momentul acesta ca opiniile sunt incalcite si rareori argumentate.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu