Counter-Hegemonic Visions of Neo-Eurasianism

Eurasian_World_Island_with_tex

Introduction

Intellectuals and writers of modern Russia with great enthusiasm take care of the search for adequate socio-political explanations of the former gigantic empire, which after the collapse of the Soviet Union was lost and disoriented. At the same time, the universal vacuum was affecting Russia’s integral environment due to the fall of the Marxist-Leninist development project. After all this, philosophers and social activist tried to make a foundation to the actual ideological goals of Russian society. However, so far, many of ideological aspirations to create new national policy was unsuccessful.

Since the mid-1990s, theoretical debates about Russia’s role in post-soviet space began with the key concepts of “Eurasia” and “Eurasianism”. The concept of Eurasia has become an integral part of the political discourse in Russia. As a matter of this discourse, the value of this concept appeared numerous presentations and analytical works of publicists, intellectuals, and politicians who are tried to use it to describe the present and future role of Russia in world politics. Today, Eurasianism advocates general turns and ideas of geo- political and geo-strategic processes which should give an idea about the Russian position in the post-communist world order. In this sense, the concept of Eurasia represents mainly normative category, which is used in the work within the framework of political and ideologically debate about the self-understanding of Russia.

It is obvious that an increasing spread of the hypothesis of Eurasia is not only about a geographical value, but it also refers to specific socio-cultural issues that can serve as the point of crossing of very different research strategies. Despite the apparent popularity of the concept, yet there are no criteria that should justify the scheme of the concept of Eurasia’s geographical space that covers the Russia and the countries of Central Asia, as well as some adjacent areas of Western and Eastern Europe. In this paper, I would like to relate the points of view on contemporary Eurasianism – what impact it has on modern political processes. First, we consider the post-Soviet debate over Eurasians and Eurasianism in Russia. At the same time, we will focus on the concept of Eurasianism how it perceives the modern globalization.

 

Eurasianism as the theory

The eurasianist line of thought was created by members of the elite of the Russian emigration, rightly considered a continuation of the theory of Slavophilism. Like modern Eurasianists, representatives of early Eurasianism by their own philosophy were based on criticism of the Western model of progress and the idea of individualism, which they analogized it as the strongly romanticized notions of individual liberty. The denial of the universalistic way of thinking, which are considered as characteristic only of the European culture where strictly criticized. Eurasianist were based on ideas of “cultural uniqueness”, that each nation, people or social unity have their own unique codes of existence.

The core of the Eurasian culture is to be considered Russian civilization. According to this theory, Russia something that is beyond geographical and cultural margins, which does not belong to Europe, either to Asia. But at this point, Eurasianist state that Russia occupies a special position between the continents and exist as a unique civilization. As the basis of the Russian culture is to unify of all Slavic peoples. Eurasianism was built on a more or less widely understood national-ethnical amalgamation.

Russian society is a multiethnic synthesis, which by very special way united Russian- Slavic, Finno-Ugric, and the Mongol-Turkic and Mongolian elements in social structures. Although the old concept of Eurasianism, compared to its national-conservative predecessors, was much oriented on Asia.

The Modern Eurasians point out that Russian culture is a separate cultural and historical memory which is not only identical with the territory of the settlement of the Slavic peoples, but it also represents a very special space by geographical, ethnic, historical and socio-economic characteristics. By an essential part of this ideas it belonged to the notion of the secular process of homogenization; as a result appeared something like a Eurasian “melting pot.”1

The revival of the Eurasian idea has occurred during the changes of political backdrop, which even reflected the Russia’s foreign policy in the early 1990s. Yeltsin’s administration led liberal forces,which was interested in close cooperation with the North Atlantic alliance and Western institutions. Yeltsin’s liberal government’s aspirations towards west failed and it resulted from the departure from western policies. However, failed relationship towards western countries significantly changed Russians international policy. This change was accompanied by an increased partnership of Asian countries (China, India, partly Japan) and the Middle East (especially Iran), while the political rhetoric changed about the greatness of Russia.

Eurasianism of the 1990s provided the ideological program for these changes in Russian foreign policy. Russia’s central idea focused on issues, which were standing on its uniqueness in terms of cultural and political concerns. That’s why in this period, elites started to promote that Russian civilization cannot be measured by Western European standards. Obviously, it led for the legitimization of the refusal of the North Atlantic influences over political agenda and at the same time it justified a confident behavior in relation to the East Asia. However, upon closer examinations, it appears that around this basic idea of Eurasianism completely changed in different interpretations.

To understand the culture of Russian politics is important to pay attention to the internal divisions that recreated Eurasianims as the resistant ideology towards Western influences. In next chapters, I will consider the more by modern interpretations of Eurasianism, which includes in its agenda in resistance against western influences in the world. For example, I will show how Eurasianism became nationalistic aspired ideology and how it sees Russia’s role in modern political conjecture.

Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that this version of “old” Eurasianism is represented only in fragments. It has weak detailed expression and convincing overall concept. In addition, this position is burdened with a serious problem: the representatives of Eurasianism are obviously anxious to differentiate themselves from the nationalist and authoritarian Eurasian ideas and bring under their notions a rational democratic foundation, gradually becomes unclear. In fact, their position is completely different from the liberal positions of so-called “Westerners”. The question arises: what are main focuses and manifest of success in an attempt to liberalize Eurasianism concept by democratic postulates, when the issue of civilizational dominance already includes aspects of nationalism? Old Eurasians, announce that civilizations (if it satisfies historical requirements to be civilization) has its own codes of everyday existence and that should be followed as the national idea.2 But what exactly is this declaration of Russian civilization and how it is related to liberal postulates of openness to cultural influences from neighboring people remains unclear? Apparently, the old Eurasian school lost its influence, because of unclear and not specific ideology. In the same way, this school was much more concentrated on historical and cultural aspects, which had a weak political influence on the Russian population. More importantly, fail of old Eurasianism led the foundation of neo- Eurasianism, which even could be seen in Russia’s foreign policy.

Attitude to the Western system of values is critical and it excludes the adoption of clear reforms from the capitalist economy and the rapid modernization of the country. But incentives of cultural superiority over western countries could not be seen. The most important subject of etatistic version of Eurasianism lays in geopolitics, considering Russia as a Eurasian great power. After distancing itself from the North Atlantic foreign policy of the past years, the future of Russia is no longer placed in the European context, where it would only able to play a role of a subordinate state, but in the East Asian it can regain all the power and influence which policy of the mega state prerequisites. The special role of relations with Asian hemisphere is seen as the political instrument, which will ensure regaining of the lost socio-political influences over mentioned region.

Neo-Eurasianiasim, in accordance with international policy strongly relies on one important goal- to create a counterweight to Euro- Atlantic system and at the same time to avoid the isolation of Russia between this system and the Pacific Rim.3 More importantly is to avoid the classic tools of foreign and military policy and to replace them with the economic and cultural methods of influence. In particular, the development of resources and the opening of new markets, which would lead predominant position of Russia in the region. This mission also includes evident pragmatic Eurasianism, which is flexible enough to recognize that Russian foreign policy depends on the participation in а global communications and trade relations. Neo-Eurasianism relation to democracy is completely different from western democracy. It much more emphasizes the special role of Russia and its socio-cultural differences over western civilization. The starting point here is the belief, that in the US or in the UK, there is the little tradition of classical liberalism. Eurasianist perception completely relies on society and it has much more parallels with orthodox Marxism. This issue, about the ideological resemblance, will be discussed in next chapters.

Since Vladimir Putin took a place on to the post of President, above mentioned foreign and internal policies became the official position of the government. For example, the official publication of the president which brilliantly describes Russian Eurasianist agenda:

“Russia emerged and has been developing for centuries as a multinational state. A state where a process of reciprocal adjustment, reciprocal penetration, mixing of the nations on familial, friendly and employment-related levels was constantly going on.”According to this statement, we can see that Putin national policy is directed from incentives of Eurasianism; as because Eurasianism advocates that Russia should be the pedestal for the unification of civilizations which were members of Soviet Empire. Putin also addsthis segment from his publication: “We see what is happening in the world, the serious risks that are accumulating: escalating interethnic and interreligious tensions are today’s reality. Nationalism and religious intolerance are becoming an ideological base for some of the most radical groups and movements – destroying or eroding states, and dividing societies. The colossal flows of immigration – and we have every reason to assume that they will continue to grow – are already being referred to as a new ‘Great Human Migration,’ capable of shifting the familiar structures and images of entire continents. Millions of people in search of better lives are leaving regions stricken by hunger and chronic conflicts, poverty, and social unrest.”5

With the rejection of neo-liberal democracy and the emphasized the authority of President of Russia, obviously failed to hit political reforms that could transmit liberalism. It is too early to make prognosis whether in which particular direction part of Russian society is opposing western universal rights. However, this kind of policies clearly expresses the framework of the Eurasian concept and its ideological basis.

The radical form of Eurasianism is promoted by Russian intellectuals and philosophers. One of the flamboyant representations of Eurasianims is Alexandr Dugin. Dugin own numerous works and articles about Russia’s geopolitical role and its potentials in the future world system. But philosopher Dugin became popular by his book –“The Fourth Political Ideology.” According to Dugin, Fourth Political ideology will become Eurasianism, which will be strengthened by revolutionary-conservative postulates. Also, Dugin and his associates are leading political association so called “Eurasian movement”.

Alexandr Dugin is a brilliant representative and architect of modern Russia’s geopolitical orients and lines. Once, in the early 1990s expressed his ideas on the pages of the extremist newspaper “Зав- тра.” After 1991, he founded his own newspaper called “Элементы “, which provided the opportunity for publishing article about the “new rights” in Europe. Meanwhile, Dugin published a large number of works on the topics of Eurasia, which are distributed through internet, publications, and books.

Neo-eurasism of this kind is expounding the ideas of its antecedents, bringing an anti- Western and anti-American approach. The United States of America is characterized as the “Monster country”, which aims to Americanize Russians and the rest of a world with the instrument called -Western liberalism. However, Europe is no longer measured as a global source of evil. Europe became the rather confused political entity. According to Dugin, Atlanticists have amalgamated their situation through intercontinental organizations and hierarchy of power. Herewith, Eurasian resistance towards Atlantics is unsystematic and weak. This is caused because of Atlanticism, by selecting individual rights, dissolves societal ties and responsibilities, which diminishes traditional inheritance; thus dismisses the foundations that tolerate traditional civilizations and communities to exist in the future. Its domination is followed by understanding that any kind of resistance to its economic goal as an insult to sovereignty and liberty.

Dugin’s in his book “fourth political ideology” come with the idea of “great space”. By this “greatspace” author offers a diverse allocation of influence between the center and peripherical regions based on the historical retrospective. The center is accountable for military and economic cooperation between the autonomies, which have right to establish their inner businesses in harmony with their traditional and unique cultural code. Plus the room is left for numerous political, economic and social organizations but which is much more based on conservative ethics and moralities.Without the revival of the Russian nation as the core of Eurasianism, this project does not have any chances of successful implementation.6

The viewpoint of this project is associated firstly with anti-individualistic and anti-liberal concepts of integration. We could say that Eurasianism is based on the dominance of traditional collective values. The principle of collective, community management, is the very characteristic of Russian history and people. About the cultural diversity, Dugin states from his “Main principals of Eurasinist policy” following: “The undoubted strategic unity in Eurasianist federalism is accompanied byethnic plurality, by the emphasis on the juridical element of the “rights of the peoples”. The strategic control of the space of the Eurasian Union is ensured by the unity of management and federal strategic districts, in whose composition various formations can enter – from ethno-cultural to territorial. The immediate differentiation of territories into several levels will add flexibility, adaptability, and plurality to the system of administrative management in combination withrigid centralism in the strategic sphere.”7

It is difficult to estimate the value exalted version of Eurasianism within the full range of the Eurasian discussion. Dugin himself believes that he has a significant impact on the determination of the Eurasian position of today’s Russian government. At least, his opinions, essays, and articles are regularly published on the pro-government web-sites. Also, we have to point out the fact that Dugin is an advisor to various influential Politian’s in Russia, but not officially. Generally, Dugin has a good relationship with the authorities and elites who represent the bastion of Russia’s internal and integral policies.

Globalization through context of Eurasianism

Globalization has countless appearances. It can be conceived with a numerous explanations,analysis, and critics. But what is its actual driving force, does it have structuralized ideology at all? This is the main question of modern Eurasianist philosophers who are trying to understand contemporary international relations. According to them, the trend of globalization needs deeper, complex and analytical approach, in order to understand its existent nature and what can it possess in the future. Globalization is a tendency which could be inherited by special reasons, as because if it is a “trend” it should have own assignments and goals to be achieved. Important is to understand what lays behind globalization.

Eurasianist points out that, especially in the postmodern era, globalization can’t exist without any objectives and specific reasons. In the modern academic specter on the subject of globalization, we can clearly see that there are numerous books, articles, essays, analysis and critics about mentioned phenomenon. Some of them are much more oriented on the explanation of globalization from objective perceptions and some of those are extremely opposing it. I will explain what forms, hidden narratives, ideologies, historical origins and reactionary projects of globalization had and could have in the future through Eurasian philosophy.

It is imperative to emphasize the concept of reactionary “project” which is considered as the Eurasianism against globalization. In this occasion, Eurasianist comes out from the civilizational questions. The process of demolition of old traditions, has been utterly analyzed in the current epoch (perceived as the one of an attribute of globalization): are civilizational issues getting weak in the era of globalization? Eurasianism should be identified as the anti-globalist project, which fundamentally opposes current nature of globalization.

Based on the principals of anti-globalism, this philosophy focuses on the explanation of  the future methods, which they use against globalization and homogenization of this kind.

Emphasizing struggle between globalism and anti-globalism is an unavoidable issue because it should lead us to ideological constructions and configurations of the project of Eurasianism, as one of opposing ideology towards current socio-political conjuncture.

Alexandr Dugins book – “The Fourth Political Ideology” focuses on the conceptual forces which are laying behind the globalization. Dugin’s main points about the examination of globalization several include topics such as: revolutionary conservatism, western universalism under globalization, a growth of national identity as consequence of globalization, tendencies of global market hybridization, and nationalism as the offspring of globalization.8

In order to find out what globalization process is linked to, Dugin suggests that we have to penetrate inside the ideas of Atlancism, concepts of civilizations, and future projects of official and nonofficial national security strategies; finalizing those aspects with examples academic dialogues from different philosophical thought about the threats in the globalized world. Dugin, also uses topic of Yalt conference as the historical enabler and successor of globalization9. Therefore, the author attempts to give a structuralized explanation about the significance of Yalt conference as the case study of US national policy towards the world. Moreover, about the rapid accumulation of capital in a post-war realm.

From notions of globalization, Eurasian analyst highlight struggle of political ideologies amongst western and eastern civilizations. Neo-liberalism advances a new line on an old story. It draws on several centuries of modern thought dating back to likes Locke and Adam Smith. From another side focus about the ideological differences between two schools is revolutionary conservatism-C.Schmitt, M.Haidegger, and A.Negri.10 Academic dialogues between mentioned ideologies have the vital influence on explaining core and ideas of globalization and cultural homogenization. I think explanations from those schools should give structuralize idea of phenomenon what is globalization and what hidden narratives it has.

For more prominence, Dugin makes comparisons of different philosophers from diverse parts of cultures and nations. According to him, globalism and issues of civilizations in contemporary world seem opaque; because those subjects are easily concealed in the name of American democracy.

In order to make the future prediction about globalization and its impact on Eurasianist ideas, it is necessary to understand numerous explanations from an ideological concept of Eurasianism. Explanations of this kind, which I will develop further could provide analytical grounds to see how globalization is perceived by Eurasianism.

Marshal plan from Eurasian perspective

“Creation of a dynamic world community in which the peoples of every nation will be able to realize their potentialities for peace.”11 This spectacular words of Henry Morgenthau can be considered as one of the strongest arguments in order for creating globalized trade system within the nations. Above mentioned speech brightly reflects trends which were completely innovative in order to change the world toward unification by cultural and political closeness.

The project of developmentalism12 can be described as the scheme of globalization and homogenization. Under this project, United States of America formed Marshal Plan to aid and redistribute dollars to underdeveloped states, those who suffered from outcomes of WWII. The scale was gigantic- from European through Asia to Africa). Marshal plan established the dollar as new international currency and promoted freedom of an enterprise, which became “litmus test of the so called free world”. Alongside stimulating free trade through world wide scale, Marshal Plan had various ramifications such as in cultural, social, economic and political aspects, which we can be perceived as the examples of one of for steps towards globalization.

Dugin’s point remains that concept of capitalism was wrapped up by ideas of globalization- creating a homogeneous system of trade and cooperation. In the post-war era, Marshal Plan became a combination of United States of America’s international priorities, which also meant encouragement of its national interest during the Cold War period. Globalization with the name of developmentalism emerged by the institutional framework; planners perceived that raising and protecting living standards in the developed countries need massive (military and economic) assistance projects.

The concept of globalization project of this kind allowed capitalism to develop and even to become the new principle of the international arena. Capitalism deeply entered into the worldwide scale, which fundamentally changed directions and ideologies of postwar humanity; changes reverberated completely in every aspect of life. Indeed, the historical project succeeded. Globalization stated to intervene in various states and cultures, which laid a foundation for dominance of capital and universalism (western thought).13

This kind of critique by Dugin about the Marshal Plan is associated to Anti-Americanism; because US was one spectacular example of the state which desired to dominate monetary, political and even cultural aspects of countries, which were catastrophically suffered after WWII.

American projectwas strongly infused after 1945. The conference  of Malt recreated wills of nations in order to dominate the rest of the world. Dominance didn’t mean only military interventions, it intended to spread cultural ideas and cores of nation state ideologies – two mega powers, on one side capitalism and on second socialist camp. Without even considering ideological differences, Dugin states that imperial goals of a mentioned camps were cardinally different. The United States – divided economic and class issues, meant separation of a farmer from a banker, worker, and employer with the manifest of liberalism and transcendence of private property. USSR in somewhat sense by different political morality by standing against mercantilism and capitalistic approaches, focusing much more on moralities of social entities rather than individual private needs14.

Put aside the difference between those political ideologies and we can easily see that both camps were competing in cultural and civilizational matters – private property, the concept of individuum against radical equality and perception of society as whole non-integral part of life. Doesn’t matter which of those ideologies were close to its true understanding and manifesto, but matters the fact that both recreated original reactions of the world system. During Cold war exactly happened this – that two mega nationhood’s where competing, which can be called globalization, assimilation of values and moral foundations of different civilizations, states, and people.

Dugin’s analysis of American international policy by means of a historical retrospective and contemporary issues lays on the paradigm of transmitting their own cultural and political values. In this case, the coexistence of globalism and Eurasian civilizations in a contemporary world seems opaque.

3 sort of different prognosis

For more comparison, I would like to make an analysis of 3 different prognoses about the future of world political system: what similarities and dissimilarities they have towards Eurasianist theory about the role of civilization in contemporary politics.

Though Francis Fukuyama made a criticism of he’s political book “The End of History?” and indicated on the subject- that he’s future predictions have barriers in front and obstacle is “nation state”. According to him, this phenomenon of the nation-state has to be overcome by particular reason- preparation of nations and cultures for upcoming imminent and strong globalism. “The nation will continue to be a central pole of identification, even if more and more nations come to share common economic and political forms of organization”15. Yet, Fukuyama’s predictions seem not fully successful, as because clashes between civilizations and human values still exist, but not as much as after WWII and Cold War period.

We can even state, that Eurasianism can be perceived as the movement and ideology, which fundamentally blocks Fukuyama’s predictions about the success of liberal-democracy in every nation.

Samuel Huntington offers different views about the forthcoming political conjecture. Unlike Fukuyama’s thought about the manifestation of liberalism and globalism on a worldwide scale. Huntington is much more focused on the mystery of civilization like Eurasianists. According to him, civilizations are an enigmatic and obscure phenomenon which always protect their origins, history, and memories. Moreover, the desire to resist unknown and not classical happening inside civilizations may be conscious or subconscious, but his main point hides in this formulation: Even though several political changes through a historical retrospective, globalization will be unable to penetrate inside the cultural and traditional bastion of civilizations. Instead, it will aggravate nationalism of traditional societies.

In that way, the thesis of S. Huntington strongly grips on the concept that some of nations and civilizations are struggling and will try to escape globalization, westernization, and American hegemony for strengthening their traditions and to preserve their own uniqueness. “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.16″ To take Huntington’s ideas into considerations it’s more likely to be closer to the contemporary socio-political environment we exist. Even in the era of globalization and we can state that nation-states will remain the powerful actors in international specter. As we have international policies of modern Russia, which symbolizes nature of Eurasianist resistance towards global politics. Exactly with this scenario, Huntington missed in “The Clash of Civilizations” one and only one motivating component of globalization- economical interest, accumulation of capital through-out world, whereas Eurasianist does not miss the point about the influence of economic.

The clash between civilizations may occur, resistance towards globalization may get bigger scales, societies of many sorts and cultures may strongly stand against it, which for many remains malicious drive force. Globalization life-force lays in the capital, into accumulating as much as possible through worldwide scale. Dugin, eventually mentions that nation, which were in the list of so called “Marshal Plan” where developed by the west in order to exploit them under their dominance. Globalization literary, after some filtration of time, stigmatized as the negative phenomenon, because of its insidious character- a mercantilist force which uses cultural and economic unity as the way to hide its true nature. Mostly, globalization is interpreted as the force which demolishes the idea of traditional society.17

Thomas P.M. Barnett American military geostrategist and analyst developed the theory of contemporary political establishment in the matter of globalization. His theory is mentioned inDugin’s works as one of the vivid demonstration of relations between countries in the globalized world. Barnett’s theory is divided into the “Functioning Core” and “Non-Integrating Gap”. The meaning of theory merges from the idea that technological and economic improvement recreates divisions of all territories on the planet. Categories classify as three:

 

1.                          The core

 

2.                          The zone of connectedness

 

3.                          The zone of disconnectedness

 

Theory follows from conceptions that network of functioning core can easily infiltrate borders, through civilizations and governments. In the end, it creates strategic space for “core” to arrange and rearrange the world as they want. Other countries, in this case, states and civilizations which are just the zones of connectedness are condemned to be contributors for the core. The zone of disconnectedness is civilizations and nations who resisted and stood up against USA, West, and Globalization. (Thomas P.M. Barnett, 2005). In this matter, Eurasianism completely stands on the zone of disconnectedness, but only in the theoretical way, because nowadays Russia is economically dependent on the core.

For Barrnett technology is fate “embodied the quintessence of civilization, understood purely technologically, almost with Spengler, but with a positive sign”18.

Comparisons between ideologies

 

The crucial question about what is driving force of globalization still remains actual. In order tomake the future prediction about globalization, it is necessary to understand numerous explanations fromn ideological backgrounds. Explanations of this kind, which we will develop further could provide analytical grounds see what differences and similarities ideologies have about an issue of globalization.

In order to narrow our comparison, it is obligatory to make a focus on several philosophies of thought, which more likely differ and describe globalization much more structurally and absolutely; under surveillance of Liberalism, Marxism, and Eurasianist. Mentioned theoretical frameworks offer advanced definitions and explanatory framework of policies which lay behind globalization. All of those school differ in the means of approach and methodology. Some of them have more methodologically idealistic style, some others are concentrated more on materialistic explanations.Explaining globalization only by the Eurasianist school is not enough because these main schools offer clarifications why global relations have boomed with particular promptness and concentration in current history.

Explanation of globalism and globalization process by liberal school tend to perceive it as the fragment of modernization. As we mentioned previously, liberalism sees this kind of approach as the part of interests in order to maximize the intercontinental progress and prosperity through scope of developmentalism. From a liberalist point globalization goal for what human-beings naturally aspire to. As it seems, core of explaining globalization by liberalist point of view nests in natural senses seek for globalization, that integration of markets are human behaviors natural sense, because this processes could be perceived as a bastion of human rights and ways to escape poverty: “natural human desires for economic welfare and political liberty. As such, increased transplanetary connectivity is ultimately derived from human drives to maximize material well-being (through markets and to exercise basic freedoms (as guaranteed by publicly accountable government.)”19

We have to take in the consideration that by the liberal school, on the top is assumed human primordial nature. Firstly, they state that incentives of individuals are to become wealthy and to seek freedom. Secondly, technological and suitable legal institutions that are brought by globalization directly ensures free market space, human rights, and universal values. That’s why the attractive and widespread view of globalization is directly linked to liberal- democracy, as it is ranked as the prime traditional account of globalization.

Eurasianist state that today liberalism became the face of the globalization and processes which indicated levels of being “globalized”. A Huge amount of governments that function on a wide scale of the interplanetary arena is followed liberal policies and decision-making practices. Transnational institutions have played the vital role of stimulating globalization as the offspring of neo-liberalism and commercial relations and mass media have similarly presumed as the strongholds of neoliberalism, which has overall graded as policies of promoting globalization. Generally, we can state that liberal philosophies lately gained prevalent acceptance as corporate and common sense into the practice of unification. In another variant, globalization by liberal school solely stands on the several paradigms:

Main focus on markets

 

  1.  Globalization as combinations of “universal” (western) values, technological progress andinstitutional facilitations
  2.  Unification of the world with uniform patterns of production and consumption
  3.  Democratic integration of the world based on common interests of mankind such as equity,human rights protection, rule of law, pluralism, peace, and security

Dugin strongly disagrees with the members of the liberal school, because according to him, liberalist is affected by “cultural blindness”, which means – lacking social and historical approach to thehuman nature. According to liberalist bastion of thought, people are expected to be correspondingly cooperative to and eager of increased globality in their everyday life. In this case, Eurasianist fundamentally stands on the idea to oppose globalization which is strengthened by liberal-democratic values.

From Eurasianist perspective liberal ideology after defeating its obstructions inherited monopoly on ideological thinking and became a solitary ideology; not allowing “others” drawing near. Neo-liberalism from the level of program transformed into the operational system. In his book, Dugin shapes interesting section of the era of technological and ideological globalization. He utters that, when consumer enters into the computer shop he usually does not demand computer with operation system Microsoft, but consumer only demands computer in which Microsoft is already integrated20. The same parallel is with liberalism in an epoch of globalization, it sticks to us by its own choice and freedom, even when resistance and complaining seem pointless and futile.

Eurasianist identifies globalization as the offspring of liberalism, which could be considered the silent agreement, and consensus, because the transcendence of private property became a core of XXI century ideological basis; individuals even don’t own private property, but private property owns them. Exactly this phenomenon – subconscious extraction and consumerism, actually creates new equilibrium and unique period in human existence; an era of transition from the modern to post-modern creates cloudy meanings of civil society- citizens of the world are unable to see and fight the enemy which is impossible to be detected. “An important aspect of the Eurasian worldview is an absolute denial of Western civilization. In the opinion of the Eurasians, the West with its ideology of liberalism is an absolute evil.”21

After describing modern liberalism from the viewpoints of Eurasianism, I can state that whole concept of Eurasianism is the actual critique of liberalism; and of globalization, which is considered as the instrument of power of liberal-democracy. A succession of Eurasianism project is only possible when Eurasian civilization finally would be able to resist globalization which is lead by liberal values.

Marxist description of globalization merely rests on class relations. Orthodox Marxism evidently is described as the critique of the capitalism, and in this matter, Marxist oppose globalization because of its capitalistic nature. By inertia, Marxist exist in western communities, in the countries where Marxism was never realized. Even in the United States of America, the Marxist academic environment still exists. In various occasions, Marxist orthodox from mentioned hemisphere lighten up (in the spirit of Eurocommunism) radical statement of Marx, which could be seen in the refusal of revolutionary turn over and in the implementation of absolute proletariat dictatorship.

The main weak point of western Marxist remains in theoretical nuances. Even in the contemporary world, they continue to speak with the term of industrial society when whole humanity, stressfully the American society completely transformed from industrial to post- industrial (informative) society. The transition between to occurrence explains nature of globalization, that it could easily fit every socio-political change through world-wide scale and still don’t convert into something different.

Orthodoxly, Marxist explain globalization as the extension of transplanetary relations as the classical product from the capitalist approach of production. According to this statement, Marxist philosophy offers a fundamental principle that technological progress, which turned on processes of hyper globalization have not been impelled by liberalist point of view that human “nature” by instinct drives for economic growth. On the contrary, Marxist explanation in this segments remains globalization as the face of capitalism is stimulated historic specific impulses of capitalism attractiveness. Marxists accounts globalization as the legal framework of capitalism, which directly means that globalization and free market space not spread as much as human freedom and prosperity for everyone rather it serves the logic to accumulate surplus as much as possible in transplanetary relations. Herewith, Marxist philosophy adds the segment of explaining instruments of exploitation by ruling classes; that human liberty, equal economic rights, and individual prosperity are not real impulses of liberalist talks. Behind it hides increased intercontinental connectivity, but legitimating ideology for exploitative global capitalist class relations.

To make comparisons from modern socio-political processes, Marxists and Eurasianist stand on the same fundament of describing globalization’s exploitative nature. According to Dugin, the modern world stopped to be bipolar when the Soviet Union collapsed; and it transformed into unipolar. Today, the unipolar system is led by the US and by its national policy. Because of that, the basis of Eurasianism became revolutionary ideology rejecting universality, uniqueness, and the domination of the Atlantic system of values. On the scale of the planetary trends – it is a global, revolutionary concept of civilization, which is gradually being formed, and will become a new platform for mutual understandings of various forces which stand against globalization. Thus, neo-Eurasianism in the broadest sense – this is pure philosophy, the concept of a revolutionary ideology strengthened by ethical and moral norms, Marxism of the XXI century22.

The book “Fourth Political Ideology” – manifesto of Eurasianism brilliantly explains matters and reasons why this ideology has a right to exist, but actually, Eurasianism lacks pragmatic structure and ways how to resist against the present unipolar international system. In fact, for me, Eurasianism still is not a political ideology, it is the strong and vividly interpreted theory in which structuralized academic approach is absent.

We can stalwartly state that globalization is the main fundamental process of the present world, which even defines a vector of modern history. The national policies are becoming global; we stand on the verge of creating a planetary state with a single unified administrative and economic system. But we don’t have to think that all the people from different states, social areas, classes and economic models, suddenly, as if by magic, will actively cooperate with each other because of new logics of thinking. The multicultural essence of globalization is the delusion as it is one-dimensional by its true nature. The vector of this phenomenon is enclosed in the universalization of civilizations, societies, and individuals. In fact, it is the imposition of concept to make a single model of ethics and morals, which is conceived as the universal. If we use the terms from geopolitics, globalization is a Western European historical trend which reached its peak in the American system. Thus, globalization is imposing the whole world the Atlantic paradigm and excluding other alternative positions. The American people declared their values universal, which stays in the every aspect of human life: economy, politics, culture, social sphere, inter-faith relations. Liberal “freedom” proclaims the only universally acceptable ideology- the American one. All of this makes American unipolar globalization (Atlanticist) victory inevitable. And this is absolutely mainstream because American strategists do not make mistakes – they are representatives of the ruling power, which is enough reason to proclaim their ideas openly. The mentioned environment creates completely opaque socio-political conjuncture; era without ideology and common values which could make the foundation of strong civil society. This epoch of illusionary prosperity is brought by global trendsand by globalization itself, the namely age of postmodern.

Notes

1 Mark Bassin, Eurasianism, “Classical” and “Neo”: The Lines of Continuity

2 A.Titov, Lev Gumilev, Ethnogenesis, and Eurasianism, 2005

3 A.Dugin, osnovi geopilitiki, pp. 14-16

4 https://www.rt.com/news/russia-putin-national-policy-407/

5 https://www.rt.com/news/russia-putin-national-policy-407/

6 A.Dugin, osnovi geopilitiki,pp 88-90

7 T. Lucian, August 30, 2014. “The Real Dugin”

8 A.Dugin, Fourth Political Ideology, pp. 74-86

9 Ibid pp. 122

10 Ibid pp. 207-215

11 Henry Morgenthau, Opening Address Bretton Woods Conference (July, 1944)

12 Economic theory which states that the best way for Third World countries to develop is through fostering a strong and varied internal market and imposing high tariffs on imported goods.

13 A.Dugin, Fourth Political Ideology, pp. 222-224

14 A.Dugin, The geopolitics of Perestroika, 2016

15 Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man

16 Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

17 A.Dugin, Fourth Political Ideology, pp 210-213

18 Thomas P.M. Barnett, The Pentagon’s New Map

19 Scholte, J. A. (2000) Globalization: a critical introduction, pp. 124

20 A.Dugin, Fourth Political Ideology, pp 43-45

21 A.Dugin, Foundations of Eurasianism, 2015

22 A.Dugin, Fourth Political Ideology, pp 97-110

 

Bibliography:

1. Alexandr Dugin,osnovi geopolitiki

2. A.Dugin, The geopolitics of Perestroika, 2016

3. Alexandr Dugin, Fourth Political Ideology

4. A.Titov, “Lev Gumilev- Ethnogenesis and Eurasianism,” 2005

5. Francis Fukuyama, The End of History and the Last Man

6. Henry Morgenthau, Opening Address, Bretton Woods Conference (July, 1944)

7. Mark Bassin, Eurasianism, “Classical” and “Neo” :The Lines of Continuity

8. Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

9. Scholte, J. A. Globalization: a critical introduction,

10. Thomas C Barret, The Pentagon’s New Map

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s