Geopolitics of Multipolar World

7/27/2019 Geopolitics of Multipolar World

1/191

Alexander Dugin

Geopolitics of the Multipolar World

2012


2/191

Chapter 1. Multipolarism as an Open Project

I. Multipolarism and Land Power

Geopolitics of the Land in the Global World

In the previous part we discussed the subject of globalism, globalization, andmondialism in a view considered to be generally accepted and conventional.However, a geopolitical analysis of this phenomenon has showed that in themodern globalism we only deal with one of the two geopolitical powers, namely,with a thalassocracy, a Sea Power that from now on claims for uniqueness,totality, and normativeness and strives to pretend to be the only possiblecivilization, sociological and geopolitical condition of the world.

Therewith, we have seen thatthe philosophy of globalism is based upon theinternal surety with universalism of exactly the Western-European value system thought to be the summary of all the diverse experience of the human cultures on

all stages of their history .And finally, we showed that, in its roots, globalization has an active

ideology (mondialism) and power structures that spread and bring this ideologyinto use. If taking into account that the latter are the most authoritative intellectual

US centers (such as CFR and neoconservatives), structures of the US SupremeMilitary Command and their analysts (Owens, Sibrowsky, Barnett, Garstka),international oligarchs (such as George Soros), a number of internationalorganizations (The Bilderberg Club, Trilateral Commission, etc.), and innumerousamount of analysts, politicians, journalists, scientists, economists, people of cultureand art, and IT sector employees spread all over the world, we can understand the

reason why this ideology seems to be something that goes without saying for us.


3/191

That we sometimes take globalization as an objective process is the result of ahuge manipulation with public opinion and the fruit of a total information war.

Therefore, the picture of global processes we described is an affirmation of the real state of affairs just in part. In such a description, there is a significant shareof a normative and imperative volitional (ideological) wish that everything should be quite so, which means, it is based upon wrenches and, to some extent, strivingto represent our wishful thinking as reality.

In this part, we will describe an absolutely different point of view onglobalization and globalism that is impossible from inside the Sea Power, i.e. outof the environment of the nominal Global World. Such a view is not taken intoaccount either in antiglobalism or in alterglobalism because it refuses from themost fundamental philosophical and ideological grounds of Eurocentrism. Such aview rejects the faith in:

universalism of the Western values, that Western societies, intheir history, have passed the only possible way all the other countries areexpected to pass;

progress as an indisputable forwardness of historical and socialdevelopment;

that it is limitless technical, economical, and materialdevelopment, which is the answer for the most vital needs of allhumankind;

that people of all cultures, religions, civilizations, and ethnoses

are principally the same as the people of the West and they are governed by the same anthropological motives;

absolute superiority of capitalism over other sociopoliticalformations;

absence of any alternative for market economy; that liberal democracy is the only acceptable form of political

organization of the society;


4/191

individual freedom and individual identity as the superior valueof human being;

liberalism as a historically inevitable, higher-priority, andoptimal ideology.

In other words, we proceed to the position of the Land Power and consider the present moment of the world history from the point of view of Geopolitics-2,or the thalassocratic geopolitics as an episode of the Great Continent War, not asits conclusion.

Of course, it is difficult to refuse that the present moment of historicaldevelopment demonstrates a number of unique features that, if desired, can beinterpreted as the ultimate victory of the Sea over the Land, Carthage over Romeand Leviathan over Behemoth. Indeed, never in history the Sea Power was sucha serious success and stretched might and influence of its paradigm in such a scale.Of course, Geopolitics-2 acknowledges this fact and the consequences included.But it clearly realizes that globalization can be also interpreted otherwise, namely,as a series of victories in combats and battles, not as the ultimate win in the war.

Here, a historical analogy suggests itself: when German troops wereapproaching to Moscow in 1941, one could think that everything was lost and theend of the USSR was foredoomed. The Nazi propaganda commented the course of the war quiet so: the New Order is created in the occupied territory, theauthorities work, economical and political hierarchy is created, and the social lifeis organized. But the Soviet people kept on violently resisting at all the fronts as

well as in the rear of the enemy, while systematically moving to their goal andtheir victory.

Now, there is precisely this moment in the geopolitical stand of the Sea andthe Land. Information policy inside the Sea Power is built so as no-one has anydoubt that globalism is an accomplished fact and the global society has come aboutin its essential features, that all the obstacles from now on are of a technical

character. But from certain conceptual, philosophical, sociological, andgeopolitical positions, all of it can be challenged by suggesting an absolutely


5/191

different vision of the situation. All the point is ininterpretation . Historical factsmake no sense without interpretation. Likewise in geopolitics: any state of affairsin the field of geopolitics only makes sense in one or another interpretation.Globalism is interpreted today almost exclusively in the Atlantist meaning and,thus, the sea sense is put into it. A view from the Lands position doesnt changethe state of affairs but it does change its sense. And this, in many cases, is of fundamental importance.

Further, we will represent the view on globalization and globalism from theLands position geopolitical, sociological, philosophical, and strategical.

Grounds for Existence of Geopolitics-2 in the Global World

How can we substantiate the very possibility of a view on globalization onthe part of the Land, assuming that the structure of the global world, as we haveshown, presupposes marginalization and fragmentation of the Land?

There are several grounds for this.

1. The human spirit (conscience, will, faith) is always capable to formulate its attitude to any ambient phenomenon and even if this phenomenon is presented as invincible, integral, and objective, it is possible to take it in a different way accept or reject, justify or condemn.This is the superior dignity of man and his difference from animal species.And if man rejects and condemns something, he has the right to build

strategies to overcome it in any, most difficult and insuperable, situationsand conditions. The advance of the global society can be accepted andapproved but it can be rejected and condemned as well. In the former case,we float adrift the history, in the latter one we seek a fulcrum to stop this process. History is made by people and the spirit plays the central part here.Hence, there is a theoretical possibility to create a theory radically opposite

to the views that are built on the base of the Sea Power and accept basic


6/191

paradigms of the Western view on the things, course of history, and logic of changing sociopolitical structures.

2. The geopolitical method allows to identify globalization as a

subjective process connected with a success of one of the two global powers.Be the Land ever so marginal and fragmentized, it has serious historicalgrounds behind itself, traditions, experience, sociological and civilization background. The Lands geopolitics is not built on a void place; this is atradition that generalizes some fundamental historical, geographical, andstrategical trends. Therefore, even on the theoretical level, estimation of globalization from the position of Geopolitics-2 is absolutely relevant. Justas well as there is the subject of globalization in its center (mondialismand its structures), the Land Power can and does have its own subjectiveembodiment. In spite of a huge scale and massive forms of the historical polemics of civilizations, we, first of all, deal with a stand of minds, ideas,concepts, theories, and only then with that of material things, devices,technologies, finances, weapons, etc.

3. The process of desovereignization of national states has not yet

become nonreversible, and the elements of the Westphalian system are still being partly preserved. That means that a whole range of national states, byvirtue of certain consideration, can still bank on realization of the landstrategy, i.e. they can completely or partially reject globalization and theSea Powers paradigm. China is an example of it; it balances between

globalization and its own land identity, strictly observing that the general balance is kept and that only what consolidates China as a sovereigngeopolitical formation is borrowed from the global strategies. The same can be also said about the states the US have equaled to the Axis of Evil --Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, Syria, etc. Of course, the threat of adirect intrusion of US troops hangs over these countries like the sword of

Damocles (on the model of Iraq or Afghanistan), and they are continuouslysubject to more politic network attacks from inside. However, at the moment


7/191

their sovereignty is preserved what makes them privileged areas for development of the Land Power. It is also possible to refer here a number of hesitant countries, such as India, Turkey and others, which, beingsignificantly involved into the globalization orbit, preserve their originalsociological features, getting out of accord with the official precepts of their governing regimes. Such situation is characteristic of many Asian. Latin-American and African societies.

4. And, finally, the most general. -- The present state of Heartland. The world dominance, as we know, and thus, reality or evanescence of monopolar globalization depends on it. In 1980-90-s,Heartland fundamentally reduced its influence area. Two geopolitical belts Eastern Europe (whose countries were within the Socialist Block,Warsaw Pact, Comecon, etc.) and the Federative Republics of the USSR consistently withdrew from it. By the mid 1990-s, a bloody testing for a possibility of further breakdown of Russia into national republics hadstarted in Chechnya. This fragmentation of Heartland, down to a mosaic of

marionette dependent states in place of Russia, had to become the finalaccord of construction of the global world and the end of history, after which it would be much more difficult to speak about the Land andGeopolitics-2. Heartland is of central importance in the possibility of strategical consolidation of all Eurasia and, thus, the Land Power. If the processes that took place in Russia in 1990-s had moved in a groove and its

disintegration kept on, it would be much more difficult to challengeglobalization. But since late 1990-s -- early 2000-s, a turning-point has taken place in Russia, disintegration was stopped; moreover, the federal authoritieshave restored control over the rebellious Chechnya. Then V. Putinimplemented a legal reform of the Federation subjects (excision of thearticle about sovereignty, governors appointment, etc.) that has

consolidated the power vertical all over Russia. The CCI integration processes have started gathering pace. In August 2008, in the course of the


8/191

five-day conflict of Russia with Georgia, Russia took its direct control over territories beyond the borders of the Russian Federation (Southern Ossetia,Abkhazia), and acknowledged their independence, in spite of a huge supportof Georgia on the part of the US and the NATO countries and pressure of the international public opinion. Generally, since early 2000-s Russia asHeartland has ceased the processes of its self-disintegration, has reinforcedits energetics, has normalized the issues of energy supply abroad, hasrefused from the practice of unilateral reduction of armaments, having preserved its nuclear potential. Whereby, influence of the network of geopolitical agents of Atlantism and Mondialism on the political authorityand strategical decision making has qualitatively diminished, consolidationof the sovereignty has been understood as the top-priority issue, andintegration of Russia into a number of globalist structures menacing itsindependence has been ceased. In a word, Heartland keeps on remaining thefoundation of Eurasia, its Core -- weakened, suffered very serious losses, but still existing, independent, sovereign, and capable to pursue a policy, if

not on a global scale, then on a regional one. In its history, Russia hasseveral times fallen yet lower: the Domain Fragmentation on the turn of the13th century, The Time of Troubles, and the events of 1917-1918 show usHeartland in a yet more deplorable and weakened condition. But every time,in some period, Russia revived and returned to the orbit of its geopoliticalhistory again. The present state of Russia is difficult to recognize brilliant or

even satisfactory from the geopolitical (Eurasian) point of view. Yet ingeneral -- Heartland does exist, it is relatively independent, and therefore,we have both a theoretical and practical base to consolidate and bring to lifeall the pre-conditions for development of a response to the phenomenon of monopolar globalization on the part of the Land.

Such an answer of the Land to the challenge of globalization (as a

triumph of the Sea Power) is Multipolarism, as a theory, philosophy, strategy, policy, and practice.


9/191

Multipolarism as a Project of the World Order from the Lands Position

Multipolarism represents a summary of Geopolitics-2 in actual conditions of the global process evolution. This is an extraordinarily capacious concept thatdemands a through consideration.

Multipolarism isa real antithesis for monopolarity in all its aspects:hard (imperialism, neocons, direct US domination), soft (multilateralism) andcritical (alterglobalism, postmodernism, and neo-Marxism)ones .

The hard monopolarity version (radical American imperialism) is basedupon the idea that the US represents the last citadel of the world order, prosperity,comfort, safety, and development surrounded by a chaos of underdevelopedsocieties. Multipolarism states the directly opposite: the US is a national state thatexists among many others, its values are doubtful (or, at least, relative), its claimsare disproportional, its appetites are excessive, methods of conducting its foreign policy are inacceptable, and its technological messianism is disastrous for the

culture and ecology of the whole world. In this regard, the multipolar project is ahard antithesis to the US as an instance that methodically builds a unipolar world,and it is aimed to strongly disallow, break up, and prevent this construction.

The soft monopolarity version does not only act on behalf of the US, but on behalf of humanity, exclusively understanding it as the West and the societiesthat agree with universalism of Western values.Soft monopolarity does not claim

to press by force, but persuade, not to compel, but explain profits peoples andcountries will obtain from entering into globalization. Here the pole is not a singlenational state (the US), but Western civilization as a whole, as a quintessence of allthe humanity.

Such, as it is sometimes called,multilateral monopolarity (multilateralism, multilateralization) is rejected by Multipolarism that considers

Western culture and Western values to represent merely one axiologicalcomposition among many others, one culture among different other cultures, and


10/191

cultures and value systems based on some absolutely different principles to havethe full right for existence. Consequently, the West in a whole and those sharing itsvalues, have no grounds to insist on universalism of democracy, human rights,market, individualism, individual freedom, secularity, etc. and build a globalsociety on the base of these guidelines.

Againstalterglobalism and postmodern antiglobalism, Multipolarism advances a thesis that a capitalist phase of development and construction of worldwide global capitalism is not a necessary phase of society development, thatit is despotism and an ambition to dictate different societies some kind of singlehistory scenario. In the meantime, confusion of mankind into the single global proletariat is not a way to a better future, but an incidental and absolutely negativeaspect of the global capitalism, which does not open any new prospects and onlyleads to degradation of cultures, societies, and traditions. If peoples do have achance to organize effective resistance to the global capitalism, it is only whereSocialist ideas are combined with elements of a traditional society (archaic,agricultural, ethnical, etc.), as it was in the history of the USSR, China, North

Korea, Vietnam and takes place today in some Latin-American countries (e. g., inBolivia, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.).


11/191

Further, Multipolarism is an absolutely differentview on the space of

land than bipolarity, a bipolar world.

Multipolarism represents a normative and imperative view on the presentsituation in the world on the part of the Land and it qualitatively differs from themodel predominated in the Yalta World in the period of the Cold War.

The Bipolar World was constructed under the ideological principle, wheretwo ideologies Capitalism and Socialism acted as poles. Socialism as anideology did not challenge universalism of the West-European culture and

represented a sociocultural and political tradition that threw back to the EuropeanEnlightenment. In a certain sense, Capitalism and Socialism competed with eachother as two versions of Enlightenment, two versions of progress, two versions of universalism, two versions of the West-European sociopolitical idea.

Socialism and Marxism entered into a resonance with certain parameters of the Land Power, and therefore they did not win where Marx had supposed, but

where he excluded this possibility in an agricultural country with the predominant way of life of a traditional society and imperial organization of the


12/191

political field. Another case of an (independent) victory of Socialism China also represented an agricultural, traditional society.

Multipolarism does not oppose monopolarity from the position of a singleideology that could claim for the second pole, but it does from the position of many ideologies, a plenty of cultures, world-views and religions that (each for itsown reasons) have nothing in common with the Western liberal capitalism. In asituation, when the Sea has a unified ideological aspect (however, ever more goingto the sphere of subauditions, not explicit declarations), and the Land itself doesnt,representing itself as several different world-view and civilization ensembles,Multipolarism suggests creatinga united front of the Land against the Sea.

Multipolarism is different from both the conservative project of conservationand reinforcement of national states. On the one hand, national states in bothcolonial and post-colonial period reflect the West-European understanding of anormative political organization (that ignores any religious, social, ethnical, andcultural features of specific societies) in their structures, i.e. the nations themselves


13/191

are partially products of globalization. And on the other hand, it is only a minor part of the two hundred fifty-six countries officially itemized in the UN list todaythat are, if necessary, capable to defend their sovereignty by themselves, withoutentering into a block or alliance with other countries. It means that not eachnominal sovereign state can be considered a pole, as the degree of strategicalfreedom of the vast majority of the countries acknowledged is negligible.Therefore, reinforcement of the Westphalian system that still mechanically existstoday is not an issue of Multipolarism.

Being the opposition of monopolarity, Multipolarism does not call to either return to the bipolar world on the base of ideology or to fasten the order of nationalstates, or to merely preserve the status quo. All these strategies will only play inhands of globalization and monopolarity centers, as they have a project, a plan, agoal, and a rational route of movement to future; and all the scenarios enumeratedare at best an appeal to a delay of the globalization process, and at worst(restoration of bipolarity on the base of ideology) look like irresponsible fantasyand nostalgia.

Multipolarism is a vector of the Lands geopolitics directed to the future. Itis based upon a sociological paradigm whose consistency is historically proven inthe past and which realistically takes into account the state of affairs existing in themodern world and basic trends and force lines of its probable transformations. ButMultipolarism is constructed on this basis as a project, as a plan of the world order we yet only expect to create.

2 Multipolarism and its Theoretical Foundation

The absence of the Multipolarism Theory

In spite of the fact that the term Multipolarism is quite often used in

political and international discussions recently, its meaning is rather diffuse andinconcrete. Different circles and separate analysts and politicians insert their own


14/191

sense in it. Well-founded researches and solid scientific monographs devoted toMultipolarism can be counted on fingers1. Even serious articles on this topic arequite rare2. The reason for this is well understood: as the US and Western countriesset the parameters of the normative political and ideological discourse in a globalscale today, according to these rules, whatever you want can be discussed but thesharpest and most painful questions. Even those considering unipolarity to have been just a moment3 in the 1990-s and a transfer to some new indefinite model to be taking place now are ready to discuss any versions but the multipolar one.Thus, for example, the modern head of CFR Richard Haass tells about Non-

Polarity meaning such stage of globalization where necessity in presence of arigid center falls off by itself 4. Such wiles are explained by the fact that one of theaims of globalization is, as we have seen, marginalization of the Land Power.And as far as Multipolarism can only be a form of an active strategy of the LandPower in the new conditions, any reference to it is not welcome by the West thatsets the trend in the structure of political analysis in the general global context. Stillless one should expect that conventional ideologies of the West take up

development of the Multipolarism Theory .It would be logical to assume that the Multipolarism Theory will be

developed in the countries that explicitly declare orientation upon a multipolar world as the general vector of their foreign policy. The number of such countriesincludes Russia, China, India, and some others. Besides, the address toMultipolarism can be encountered in texts and documents of some European

1 Murray D., Brown D. (eds.) Multipolarity in the 21st Century. A New World Order. Abingdon, UK: Routledge,2010; Ambrosio Th. Challenging America global Preeminence: Russian Quest for Multipolarity. Chippenheim,Wiltshire: Anthony Rose, 2005;Peral L . (ed.) Global Security in a Multi-polar World. ChaillotPaper. Paris: European Institute for Security Studies, 2009; Hiro D. After Empire: The Birth of a Multipolar World. Yale: Nation Books ,2009. 2 Turner Susan. Russia, Chine and the Multipolar World Order: the danger in the undefined// Asian Perspective.2009. Vol. 33, No. 1. C. 159-184; Higgott Richard Multi-Polarity and Trans-Atlantic Relations: NormativeAspirations and Practical Limits of EU Foreign Policy. www.garnet-eu.org. 2010. [Electronic resource] URL:http://www.garnet-eu.org/fileadmin/documents/working_papers/7610.pdf ( 28.08.2010); Katz M .Primakov Redux. Putins Pursuit of Multipolarism in Asia//Demokratizatsya. 2006. vol.14 4. C.144-152. 3 Krauthammer Ch. The Unipolar Moment// Foreign Affairs. 1990 / 1991 Winter. Vol. 70, No 1.. 23-33.4 Haass R. The Age of Non-polarity: What will follow US Dominance?//Foreign Affairs.2008. 87 (3).. 44-56.


15/191

political actors (e.g., former French minister of Foreign Affairs Hubert Vidrine5).But at the moment, we can as well hardly find something more than materials of several symposiums and conferences with rather vague phrases in this field. Onehas to state that the topic of Multipolarism is not properly conceptualized also inthe countries that proclaim it as their strategical goal, not to mention the absence adistinct and integral theory of Multipolarism.

Nevertheless, on the base of the geopolitical method from the position of theLand Power and with due account for the analysis of a phenomenon calledglobalism, it is quite possible to formulate some absolute principles that mustunderlie the Multipolarism Theory when the matter comes to its more systemizedand expanded development.

Multipolarism: Geopolitics and Meta-Ideology

Lets blueprint some theoretical sources, on whose base a valuable theory of Multipolarism must be built.

It is only geopolitics that can be the base for this theory in the actual

conditions . At the moment, no religious, economical, political, social, cultural or economical ideology is capable to pull together the critical mass of the countriesand societies that refer to the Land Power in a single planetary front necessary tomake a serious and effective antithesis to globalism and the unipolar world. This isthe specificity of the historical moment (The Unipolar Moment6): the dominating

ideology (the global liberalism/post-liberalism) has no symmetrical opposition onits own level. Hence, it is necessary to directly appeal to geopolitics by taking the principle of the Land, the Land Power,instead of the opposing ideology . It is only possible in the case if the sociological, philosophical, and civilization dimensionsof geopolitics are realized to the full extent.

5 Dclaration de M. Hubert Vdrine, ministre des affaires trangres sur la reprise dune dialogue approfondie entre

la France et lHinde: les enjeux de la resistance a luniformisation culturelle et aux exces du monde unipolaire. NewDelhi -- 1 lesdiscours.vie-publique.fr. 7.02.2000. [Electronic resource] URL: http://lesdiscours.vie- publique.fr/pdf/003000733.pdf 6 Krauthammer Ch. The Unipolar Moment. Op.cit.


16/191

The Sea Power will serve us as a proof for this statement. We have seenthat the very matrix of this civilization does not only occur in the Modem Period, but also in thalassocratic empires of the Antiquity (e.g., in Carthage), in the ancientAthens or in the Republic of Venice. And within the Modern World itself atlantismand liberalism do not as well find complete predominance over the other trends atonce. And nevertheless, we can trace the conceptual sequence through a series of social formations: the Sea Power (as a geopolitical category) moves throughhistory taking various forms till it finds its most complete and absolute aspect inthe global world where its internal precepts become predominant in a planetaryscale. In other words, ideology of the modern mondialism is only a historical formof a more common geopolitical paradigm. But there is a direct relation betweenthis (probably, most absolute) form and the geopolitical matrix.

There is no such direct symmetry in case of the Land Power. TheCommunism ideology just partly (heroism, collectivism, antiliberalism) resonatedwith geopolitical percepts of the ground society (and this just in the concreteform of the Eurasian USSR and, to a lesser degree, of China), as the other aspects

of this ideology (progressism, technology, materialism) fitted badly in theaxiological structure of the Land Power. And today, even in theory, Communismcannot perform the mobilizing ideological function it used to perform in the 20th century in a planetary scale. From the ideological point of view the Land is reallysplit into fragments and, in the nearest future, we can hardly expect some newideology capable to symmetrically withstand the liberal globalism to appear. But

the very geopolitical principle of the Land does not lose anything in its paradigmatic structure. It is this principle that must be taken as a foundation for construction of the Multipolarism Theory. This theory must address directly togeopolitics, draw principles, ideas, methods and terms out of it. This will allow tootherwise take both the wide range of existing non-globalist and counter-globalistideologies, religions, cultures, and social trends. It is absolutely unnecessary to

shape them to transform into something unified and systematized. They can wellremain local or regional but be integrated into a front of common stand against


17/191

globalization and Western Civilizations domination on the meta-ideologicallevel, on the paradigmatic level of Geopolitics-2 and this moment plurality of ideologies is already laid in the very term Multi-polarism (not only within thestrategical space, but also in the field of the ideological, cultural, religious, social,and economical one).

Multipolarism is nothing but extension of Geopolitics-2 (geopolitics of the

Land) into a new environment characterized with the advance of globalism (as

atlantism) on a qualitatively new level and in qualitatively new proportions .Multipolarism has no other sense.

Geopolitics of the Land and its general vectors projected upon the modernconditions are the axis of the Multipolarism Theory, on which all the other aspectsof this theory are threaded. These aspects constitute philosophical, sociological,axiological, economical, and ethical parts of this theory. But all of them areanyway conjugated with the acknowledged in an extendedly sociological way structure of the Land Power and with the direct sense of the very concept of Multipolarism that refers us to the principles of plurality, diversity, non-

universalism, and variety.

3 Multipolarism and Neo-Eurasianism

Neo-Eurasianism as Weltanschauung

Neo-Eurasianism is positioned nearest to the theory of Multipolarism. Thisconcept roots in geopolitics and operates par excellence with the formula of Russia-Eurasia (as Heartland) but at the same time develops a wide range of ideological, philosophical, sociological and politological fields, instead of beingonly limited with geostrategy and application analysis.


18/191

What is in the term of Neo-Eurasianism can be illustrated with fragmentsof the Manifesto of the International Eurasian Movement Eurasian Mission7.Its authors point out five levels in Neo-Eurasianism allowing to interpret it in adifferent way depending on a concrete context.

The first level: Eurasianism is a Weltanschauung .According to the authors of the Manifesto, the term Eurasianism is

applied to a certain Weltanschauung, a certain political philosophy that combinesin itself tradition, modernity and even elements of postmodern in an originalmanner. The philosophy of Eurasianism proceeds from priority of values of thetraditional society, acknowledges the imperative of technical and socialmodernization (but without breaking off cultural roots), and strives to adapt itsideal program to the situation of a post-industrial, information society calledpostmodern.

The formal opposition between tradition and modernity is removed in postmodern. However, postmodernism in the atlantist aspect levels themfrom the position of indifference and exhaustiveness of contents. The

Eurasian postmodern, on the contrary, considers the possibility for analliance of tradition with modernity to be a creative, optimistic energeticimpulse that induces imagination and development.

In the Eurasianism philosophy, the realities superseded by the periodof Enlightenment obtain a legitimate place these are religion, ethnos,empire, cult, legend, etc. In the same time, a technological breakthrough,

economical development, social fairness, labour liberation, etc. are takenfrom the Modern. The oppositions are overcome by merging into a singleharmonious and original theory that arouses fresh ideas and new decisionsfor eternal problems of humankind. ()

The philosophy of Eurasianism is an open philosophy, it is free fromany forms of dogmatism. It can be appended by diversified areas history,

7 . . .: , 2005.


19/191

religion, sociological and ethnological discoveries, geopolitics, economics,regional geography, culturology, various types of strategical and politological researches, etc. Moreover, Eurasianism as a philosophyassumes an original development in each concrete cultural and linguisticcontext: Eurasianism of the Russians will inevitably differ from Eurasianismof the French or Germans, Eurasianism of the Turks from Eurasianism of theIranians; Eurasianism of the Arabs from Eurasianism of the Chinese, etc.Whereby, the main force lines of this philosophy will, in a whole, be preserved unalterable.()

The following items can be called general reference points of theEurasianism philosophy:

differentialism, pluralism of value systems againstobligatory domination of a single ideology (in our case and first of all,of the American liberal democracy);

traditionalism against destruction of cultures, beliefs andrites of the traditional society;

a world-state, continent-state against both bourgeoisnational states and the world government;

rights of nations against omnipotence of the GoldenBillion and neo-colonial hegemony of the Rich North;

an ethnos as a value and subject of history againstdepersonalization of nations and their alienation in artificial

sociopolitical constructions; social fairness and solidarity of labour people against

exploitation, logic of coarse gain, and humiliation of man by man.8

Neo-Eurasianism as a Planetary Trend

8 Ibid P.


20/191

On the second level: Neo-Eurasianism is a planetary trend . The authors of the Manifesto explain:

Eurasianism on the level of a planetary trend is a global,revolutionary, civilization concept that is, by gradually improving, addressedto become a new ideological platform of mutual understanding andcooperation for a vast conglomerate of different forces, states, nations,cultures, and confessions that refuse from the Atlantic globalization.

It is worth carefully reading the statements of the most diverse powersall over the world: politicians, philosophers, and intellectuals and we willmake sure that Eurasianists constitute the vast majority. Mentality of manynations, societies, confession, and states is, though they may not suspectabout it themselves, Eurasianist.

If thinking about this multitude of different cultures, religions,confessions, and countries discordant with the end of history we areimposed by atlantism, our courage will grow up and the seriousness of risksof realization of the American 21st century strategical security concept

related with a unipolar world establishment will sharply increase.Eurasianism is an aggregate of all natural and artificial, objective and

subjective obstacles on the way of unipolar globalization, whereby it iselevated from a mere negation to a positive project, a creative alternative.While these obstacles exist discretely and chaotically, the globalists dealwith them separately. But it is worth just integrating, pulling them together

in a single, consistent Weltanschauung of a planetary character and thechances for victory of Eurasianism all over the world will be very serious.9

Neo-Eurasianism as an Integration Project

On the next level, Neo-Eurasianism is treated asa project of strategical

integration of the Eurasian Continent :9 Ibid.


21/191

The concept the Old World usually defining Europe can beconsidered much wider. This huge multicivilization space populated withnations, states, cultures, ethnoses and confessions connected between eachother historically and spatially by the community of dialectical destiny. TheOld World is a product of organic development of human history.

The Old World is usually set against the New World, i.e. theAmerican continent that was discovered by the Europeans and has become a platform for construction of an artificial civilization where the European projects of the Modern, the period of Enlightenment have taken shape. ()

In the 20th century Europe realized its original essence and hadgradually been moving to integration of all the European states into a singleUnion capable to provide all this space with sovereignty, independence,security, and freedom.

Creation of the European Union was the greatest milestone in themission of Europes return in history. This was the response of the OldWorld to the exorbitant demands of the New one. If considering the

alliance between the US and Western Europe with US domination to bethe Atlantist vector of European development, then the integration of European nations themselves with predomination of the continentalcountries (France-Germany) can be considered Eurasianism in relation toEurope.

It becomes especially illustrative, if taking into account the theories

that Europe geopolitically stretches from the Atlantic to the Urals (Ch. deGaulle) or to Vladivostok. In other words, the interminable spaces of Russiaare also valuably included in the field of the Old World subject tointegration.

() Eurasianism in this context can be defined as a project of strategical, geopolitical, economical integration of the North of the Eurasian

Continent realized as the cradle of European history, matrix of nations andcultures closely interlaced between each other.


22/191

And since Russia itself (like, by the way, the ancestors of manyEuropeans as well) is related in a large measure with the Turkish, Mongolianworld, with Caucasian nations, through Russia and in a parallel waythrough Turkey does the integrating Europe as the Old World alreadyacquire the Eurasianism dimension to full extent; and in this case, not onlyin symbolic sense, but also in geographical one. Here Eurasianism can besynonimically identified with Continentalism.10These three most general definitions of Neo-Eurasianism demonstrate that

here we deal with a preparatory basis for construction of the Multipolarism Theory.This is the ground view on the sharpest challenges of modernity and attempt togive an adjust response to them taking into account geopolitical, civilization,sociological, historical and philosophical regularities.

10 Ibid. P.


23/191


24/191

The sources of the philosophy of plurality must be simultaneously sought in

several philosophical traditions.These are:

German Romanticism (Friedrich Schlegel (1772-1829) andAugust Schlegel (1767-1845) brothers, Friedrich Schelling (1775-1854),Friedrich Hlderlin (1770-1843), Ludwig Tieck (1773-1853), Adam Mller (17719-18), Heinrich von Kleist (1771-1811), Novalis (1772-1801), etc.);

Organicism (Alfred Espina (1844-1922), Rene Worms (1869 -1926), Paul von Lilienfeld-Toal (18291903), Albert Schffle (1831 - 1903),etc.);

Lebensphilosophie (Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), WilhelmDilthey (18331911), Henri Bergson (1859-1941), etc.);

Holistic Tradition in Sociology (F. Tennis (1855 - 1936), G.Simmel (1858-1918), W. Sombart (1863 1941), M. Moss (18721950),G. Durand, etc.);

Cultural Anthropology/Ethnosociology (Franz Boas (1858 1942) and his followers Alfred Kroeber (1876 1960), Edward Sapir (1884 1939), Robert Lovy (1883 1957), and also Bronisaw Malinowski (1884 1942), Alfred Radcliffe-Brown (1881-1955), Claude Lvi-Strauss (1908 2009)), Richard Thurnwald (1869-1954), Wilhelm Mllman (1904-1988),etc.);

Russian Slavophilia and Religious Philosophy (A. S.Khomyakov (1804-1860), I. V. Kireevsky (1806- 1856), K. N. Leontyev(1831 1891), N. Y. Danilevsky (1822-1885), V. S. Soloviev (1853 1900), etc.)

Eurasianism (N. S. Trubetskoy (1890 1938), P. N. Savitsky(1895 1965), G. V. Vernadsky (1877-1973), N. N. Alekseev (1879

1964), etc.); Fundamental Ontology (M. Heidegger (1889 1976));


25/191

Conservative Revolution (O. Spengler (1880 1936), K.Schmitt (1888 -.1985), E. Niekisch (1889 1967), E. Junger (1895 1998) ,etc.);

Traditionalism (R. Gunon (1886-1951), J. Evola (1989-1974),M. Eliade (1907-1986), etc.).The European and Russian sources should be added with a whole spectrum

of the modern Eastern philosophy: Japanese (Kitaro Nishida (1870 1945), Teitaro Daisetsu

Suzuki (1870 1966), etc.); Indian (Bal Ganadhar Tilak (18561920), Sri Ramana

Maharishi (1879 1950), Ananda Kumarasvami (1877 -1947), etc.); Chinese (Kang Youwei (1858- 1927), Liang Chi Chao (1873

1923), Sheng Youding (1908-1989), Liang Shuming (18931988), etc.); Iranian (Muhammad Ikbal (1877 - 1938), Ali Shariati (1933 -

1977), Muhammad Hussein Tabatabai (18921981), Murtaza Mattaheri(1920 1979), Seyid Hossein Nasr, etc.);

Arab (Abdel-Rahman Badawi (1917-2002), Hassan Hanafi, Nadir El-Bizri, Hichem Djat, etc.).This enormous field of theories, schools, ideas, and authors that can be

expended to infinity in all directions (geographical and historical ones into thedepth of time) has the following common property. All of them, notwithstandingwhether they are created in the West or East:

critically appraise the philosophical value structure of WesternCivilization,

reject its claims for universalism, consider the main line of West-European development to be

dead-ended in the recent centuries and qualify the present state of WesternCivilization as a crisis and the threshold of a catastrophe,

do not acknowledge the myth about progress and evolution,


26/191

critically appraise technical development and see the supremethreat in the liberated technology;

refuse to conceive the European rationality as the only possibleform of rationality,

state the right of diverse cultures to move along their paths inany direction they have chosen.In a word, all these intellectual directions are multipolar in their own way by

substantiating the right for distinction in very different contexts, aspects, andangles and undermining the claims of the Western liberal discourse for domination,uniqueness, normativeness, and globalism. Just rare authors and schools of theabove mentioned directly appealed to geopolitics, Land Power, but all of them,and many other trends in modern philosophy can be referred to the particularlyground ones according to their structures if taking into account what we havetold about the sociological dimension of geopolitics. All these schools and authorssuggest building the society on the grounds of traditions that are original anddifferent for each ethnos and each culture, each place on earth. Thus, all of them

substantiate pluriversum as an antithesis to the single world, one world.Distinction is taken in these philosophies as a synonym of life, wealth (K.Leontyev called this principle florescent complexity12), freedom, and vitality. Not as a threat and burden as universalists represent it. Therefore, thesedirections appeal to substantiate distinctions between nations and cultures, extend, preserve, and state them again. The difference between one culture or another must

not absolutely necessarily result in an automatic conflict between them. Conflictsdo periodically occur but in the same way they also occur in the universal world. Itis necessary to strive to peace and harmony, to a dialog and sympathy. But in nocase one must sacrifice dynamical structures of identity, whatever they are.

F. Boas: Equal Rights of Cultures

12 . . . .: , 1992.


27/191

In this respect, illustrative is a huge work of cultural anthropologists (of theAmerican Franz Boas school, English Malinowski school, and French ClaudeLvi-Strauss school) and ethnosociologists (R. Thurnwald) who, by exploringarchaic nations, came to the conclusion that the world of their life, the structure of mythological mentality, social pattern and views on the nature, society, man,history, life, death, mystery, rite, etc. bear a colossal cultural wealth, absolutelycomparable, if not repeatedly excelling, with the culture of a modern Western man.

F. Boas wrote about it in one of his letters from an early expedition to theArctic Baffin isles:

I often ask myself what advantages our good society possesses over thatof the savages and find, the more I see of their customs, that we have no right tolook down upon them. . . We have no right to blame them for their forms andsuperstitions which may seem ridiculous to us. We 'highly educated people' aremuch worse, relatively speaking 13.

If careful and serious anthropologists and ethnologists come to suchconclusions after getting acquainted with primitive societies, what can be said

about multimillenary cultures of Asia, the Middle East, North Africa or LatinAmerica?! What to say about the millenary Russian culture? All these cultural,social, and religious phenomena from the huge to microscopic ones are of unique value and develop in the natural way. And all of them are threatened by theroad-roller of the modern Western civilization imposing primitive codes of itsdecadent culture in a global scale, appealing to the simplest, most material and

primitive reactions that, indeed, are universal and general whereas the complexconstructions of culture and spiritual life, on the contrary, distinguish all thesocieties and make them inimitable, original, and individual.

N. Trubetskoy: The Alliance of Nations against Universalism Imposed

13 Cole D. (ed.) Franz Boas' Baffin Island Letter-Diary, 1883-1884/Stocking George W.Jr. Observers Observed.Essays on Ethnographic Fieldwork. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1983. C.33.


28/191

The philosophy of Eurasianism began with the similar thesis. Prince NicolayTrubetskoy wrote the book Europe and Mankind14 where, long beforeglobalization (in its modern form), warned that the European universalism bears initself a deadly threat to all humanity since it negates plurality of cultures. In theearly 20th century, N. Trubetskoy appealed for the nations of Earth to stick together for giving a decisive battle to the Romano-Germanic world and its unfoundedcolonial and imperialist claims. Another Eurasianist, Piotr Savitsky, having caughtup the ideas of Trubetskoy, redefined in the article Europe and Eurasia15 thatonly Russia-Eurasia can be the main support for creation of such a panhuman frontdirected against the European strategy of attitude to the world.

Relevance of the Philosophy of Plurality

In the conditions of globalization, these Eurasianist initiatives of the 1920-sof the last century look remarkably relevant. Trubetskoys thesis about the threatof Europe for humankind can be reformulated as a thesis about the threat of

globalization and the idea of P. Savitsky of the Russia-Eurasias role inconstruction of a global Anti-European alliance of nations can be laid in thefoundation of the multipolar world strategy.

But negation of globalization and struggle with unipolarity is not an end initself. They arise from a special, unique vision of the world (absolutely differentfrom the liberal, modern-European, and especially Anglo-Saxon world view),

which is nowise reactive or living by hatred and rejection, but it is self-sufficient and worth in itself in a harmonious and natural discovering of the potential of each society (great and small) in their own and always original andindividual way.

So, the philosophy of pluriversum, philosophy of distinction taken as a self-valuable and positive fundamental life phenomenon must underlie the

14 . . . , 1920.15 . . . : , 1997.


29/191

Multipolarism Theory. Contrary to the universalist philosophy of globalism, theMultipolar philosophy of distinction states that genuine values can only existwithin cultures that gave them birth , that the multitude of cultures isa fortune of mankind , not its misfortune, and only the most sinister, cultureless, and viciousmanifestations are universal in humanity. In other words, the philosophy of Multipolarism does not negate consequences or fall-outs of globalization, but itdoes negateits roots , bases, and terminal conceptual assumptions.

2 Plurality of Existence

Different Unity

We saw that the idea of globalization appeals for unity of existence in its philosophical sources (at least, thus by. Axelos, O. Fink, W. Desan, etc.).Seemingly, negating such a thesis may come to a rare mind. But the case is thateach culture comprehends and treats this unityin an absolutely different way. In

the part about globalization, we have already encountered such phenomenon asethnocentrum and we have seen that even the tiniest tribe is capable to enclosethe world into the area situated not far from the limits of their settlement. And thesun, and the moon, and the stars, and the sky, and the alive, and the dead, and theelements, and the gods, and the ghosts all of them are enclosed in theethnocentrum as in the primary matrix of globalism. Only by transition to the state

of a nation, an ethnos loses this unity of existence, but, then and there, it strikesinto chase for it and enters history to restore it. In theologically and philosophicallydeveloped cultures, unity of existence acquires yet more exquisite character. InIslam, it is connected with the subject of tauhid, the unity of a believer withAllah through observation of religious prescriptions. The Arab term tauhidmeans bringing to unity, active unity. In general, the idea of united existence

constitutes the central subject of the monotheism theologies. In the Christiantradition, this subject is particularly widely present in Orthodoxy and in a number


30/191

of monastic practices, such as Hesychasm where the idea of unity of man and Godas restoration of unity of existence is the focus of attention. Etymologically, theterm Yahudi is treated by the Jewish tradition as a derivative from the Hebraicword ahad, one, and, therefore, a Yahudi is a bearer of knowledge of SingleGod, monotheism, i.e. unity of existence.

Unity of existence is understood absolutely otherwise by Hindus (as part of Advaita-Vedanta and its philosophy), Buddhists (who put nirvana, cancellation of existence, not unity of existence, before all else), the Chinese (in the two versionsof their spiritual tradition Confucian and Taoist), and other developed philosophical cultures.

In the Russian religious philosophy (V. Solovyev, P. Florensky, S.Bulgakov) unity of existence is interpreted through a complex and paradoxaltheory of All-Unity16.

Thus, the comprehension form of unity of existence is widely varied fromethnocentrums up to the huge, by philosophical and theological volumes, religiouscultures. Unity of existence is comprehended in a different way and no instance

can pretend to be the only one to deliver a normative judgment in respect withwhat understanding of unity must be considered correct. We approach to thissubject by intricate labyrinths of various spiritual cultures and the very journey, thevery exploration of this culture (which is either given to us initially by the society,or chosen by us consciously and voluntarily) composes the difficult way of becoming a human.

In relation to unity of existence, we start from different positions and theways are also fundamentally different. If, on a certain advancement level, wecomprehend spiritual structures of other cultures and religions, it is quiteexplicable as people who seek unity are in some way similar. But it only refers tothose laying down their lives on the chancel of spirit, philosophy, religion, art, andscience. Most people live in their living world whose unity is not individually

provided by them, but by the society and its traditions. The attempt to join all the16 f. Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and the possibilty of the Russian Philosophy. M., 2010.


31/191


32/191

whose structure, according to the Multipolar Philosophy, does provide the way toexistence and openness.

Philosopher Martin Heidegger introduces the concept of Dasein, here-existence describing the structure of mans relationship with existence. Accordingto Heidegger, Dasein is the primary reality and mentality, rationality, philosophy, and culture are subsequently superstructed over it. In theMultipolarism Theory, the starting moment is the statement of plurality of Daseins,i.e. the assurance that each society, culture, ethnic or national group has its own particular Dasein19 and, by proceeding from them, ramified cultural, social, political, religious, and philosophical systems are subsequently created. Plurality ofDaseins and the research of different living worlds of nations on Earth basedupon this principle constitute the essence of the multipolar philosophy.

3 Plural Anthropology

Refusal from the Horizon of Humanity

The concept of humanity, as it is understood by the globalists, is crossedout in the multipolar philosophy. This concept is artificial, purely technical and ithas no phenomenological or empirical proof. It was born in The Modern Period onthe ground of secular humanitarian abstractions and it had a purely ideological

meaning for struggling with the Christian religion and its idea of centricity of Gods figure in the world and history. Contrary to the theological thesis, thehumanists suggested a thesis that it is not God who creates history, but it is created by humanity. Secularization of the Christian idea of creation of all people from thefirst man Adam was laid in the foundation of the concept of humanity. Havingrejected the idea of creation as a prejudice, the actors of the Enlightenment

preserved the idea of humanity as a single phenomenon , but already on the base of 19 Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and the possibilty of the Russian Philosophy. Op. cit.


33/191

sociopsychological, later (after Darwin) specific biological and zoologicalcharacteristics (Homo Sapiens).

Here is clearly seen a trace of the mason ideology, which, in its foundation,has the idea that all religions and spiritual traditions have common structure andcommon origin, and they coincide with the doctrine of masonry itself, which isreally this common model of human religiousness. Differences between religionsand cultures are presented as something secondary and as a corrupt (for themasses) paraphrase of the mason theory itself (reserved for the spiritual elite).Therefore, unity of humankind and unity of the world is one of the centralobjectives of the mason political activity, what explains us stable presence of masonry in all the global and mondialist initiatives, organizations, and societies20.The formula of single humanity in its secular, worldly aspect is, therefore, a falsemason concept.

E. Husserl, A. Malraux: European Humanity

It is also demonstrative that in the 19-20th centuries, the term European

Humanity was pretty often used in the European culture (in particular, EdmundHusserl(1859-1938)21 and Henri Malraux (1901 1976)22 constantly applied it). Itis not a lapse or an occasional expression. The European culture is based upon a presumption that it is a progressive, foregoing hologram of all the global culture.Consequently, the European society is considered to be an algorithm of a society assuch, which implies that all the humanity is merely an expanded concept (whereby,

most frequently, from the point of view of incompleteness, unaccomplishment, and backwardness) of European humanity.

The horizon of humankind that globalism and its philosophy, presumably,find out is, indeed, the same old European humanity but bloated up to the planetary size, projected on all the other cultures and nations. Therefore, theglobalists do not open the world as a whole but remain within the West that turns

20 Thual F. Gopolitique de la franc-maonnerie, Paris, Dunod, 1994.21 Husserl E. La crise de lhumanit europenne et la philosophie. P.:Philosophie, 2008.22 Malraux A. La Tentation de l'Occident. Paris: Grasset, 1926.


34/191

into a planetary West. No collision with the general, no discovery of the wholeoccurs. What does not look like the West, turns into what does look like the West(with its democracy, market, technology, liberalism, individualism, human rights,networks, etc.) and this is only accepted after that. Thus, globalism is absolutization of the local, not a discovery of the general and whole . Andhumankind is nothing but an instrumental ideological concept that serves tooperate with the formula of humankind = European humanity in all directions.Of course, in practice, this formula does not work as the majority of the worldcultures and the vast majority of the Earth population refer to a Non-Europeantype. But for the West and mondialism, this means the only one: they do not refer now but tomorrow they will some willingly but some forcibly.

Different Humankinds

From the point of view of the Multipolarism Theory, of course, there isEuropean humanity as a society built on the grounds of the Western-European

Civilizations axiological systems. But along with it, there are also many other humankinds Indian humankind, Chinese humankind, Russian-Eurasianhumankind, Arab, Islamic, African, Pacific, Buddhist, Latin-American humankind,and so forth. Whereby, their boundaries at times overlap each other and there aremicro-humankinds up to ethnoses and tribes inside them. Tiny tribes of the Nivkhs, Kets, Yukaghirs, Shors or Setu in Eurasia, Veddah in Ceylon or Pirahan in

the Amazon River basin are the same humankinds with a unique language,culture, rites and traditions, with their own rationality, living world, and Dasein.And to accumulate all of them into a common planetary ensemble, one must previously thoroughly study their cultures, enter their essence, understand and getto love them, comprehend their logic whereby, as it is not as we see it fromwithout. In practice, it is almost impossible but it can well be a high and noble

goal. It is this goal that the philosophy of Multipolarism makes its mission.


35/191

Whereby, not in order to find out what is common among all these humankinds but to enjoy the majestic abundance of their differences.

The Multipolarism Theory negatesthe horizon of humanity considering it to be an imperialist Eurocentric abstraction and it is ready to only deal with thisconcept in the form of negation, denial of it, disclosure of its bankruptcy and itscolonial, and even racist, essence (indeed, in its foundation, this concept presumes by default superiority of the Western societies over all the rest, being arepresentation of if not biological, then, in any case, of cultural, social, andtechnological racism).

The West and the Rest

It remains just to settle the question about in what sense Eurasianist N.Trubetskoy used the term humankind in his program work Europe andhumankind23? In this case, Trubetskoy understands humankind as an antithesisto European humanity, as a variety of existing cultures and traditions. Europe for

him is intrusive imperialist universalism and all the rest (humankind, in histerminology) are victims of this European global policy (including economical,cultural, educational one, etc.). It is not a single horizon but, in contrary, typicallyland diversity of cultures united by the fact that they are threatened by erasure,destruction, decomposition, and reformatting in the conditions of the West becoming global.

In his book Collision of Civilizations24, American politologist SamuelHuntington, resting upon the works of English historian Arnold Toynbee25 (1889 1975), uses the formula of The West and the Rest. What N. Trubetskoy meansto be humankind is exactly the Rest all but the West , whereas the globalistsand mondialists, in contrary, when saying humankind, first of all mean the West

23 Trubetskoy N.S. Evropa y tchelovetchestvo. Op. cit.24 Huntington Samuel P. The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order. New York: Simon andSchuster, 1996.25 Cf, Toynbee A. Postizheniye istorii.. M., 1991.


36/191

and when saying the Rest those who are yet only coming to be this West (akind of underhumankind, underdeveloped societies).

The philosophy of Multipolarism is a philosophy of the Rest who arethreatened on the part of the West and who need to consolidate their efforts torepulse this threat. Just after that, it is possible to speak about the way to unity via avery complex process of a dialog between cultures and civilizations or about preserving and reviving the differences. This question is open and theMultipolarism Theory cannot forecast the future that far. If the globalization project collapses, some absolutely different problems and challenges will arise infront of different nations and societies on Earth. Should they be global or not, it isabsolutely impossible to predict in advance. But today, all the global problematicshas a biased, instrumental and rigidly ideologized character, originates from theWestern Core, and is a form of an information war and manipulation with publicopinion.

Acknowledgment of Human Differences

Distinction of human societies is an empirically proven historical law. Weonly know different societies and each of them is based upon a specialanthropology and has a special idea of what is man. There exists no commonanthropology. Each culture solves the anthropological problem in its own way. Themultipolar philosophy recognizes this as a fact and does not strive to change it.

Therefore, it postulates multiple anthropology as its axiom and as something thatmust be recognized and comprehended but by no means be overcome. Any attemptto hierarchize human societies anyway leads to racism and even if the biological racism is out of fashion today, the cultural, economical, social, andtechnological racism remains the axis of the Western view on the world. But today,it has changed its forms: from now on, cultures and societies not recognizing the

imperative of individualism, freedom, tolerance, secularism, human rights, politicaldemocracy, and liberal market economy are considered inferior; they are


37/191

considered backward, underdeveloped, archaic and totalitarian and subject(in the extreme case Jugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.) to forced improvementand culturalizion.

The Multipolar Philosophy proceeds from an absolutely different approach:each society has the right to set forth its structures and its ideas of man on thefoundation of its own historical traditions. It may please or not please theneighboring societies. In borderline-cases, this can provoke conflicts and in others,in contrary, a harmonious combination and creative dialog. At least,we must never

judge one society by proceding from the criteria of other societies and still less

make an ideological principle from the results of this comparison this is theessence of the philosophy of Multipolarism.

4 From Plurality of Places to Plurality of Times

Philosophy and Anthropology of Place

Recognition of the positive sense in differences between societies andcultures is the foundation of the Multipolarism Theory. The world is diversified,and this, firstly, is an entity, and, secondly, a value. Societies, ethnoses, nations,countries, and civilizations situated in different areas of the Earths space expressdifferent spatial sences (Raumsinn by F. Ratzel). Thus, there arises an idea of multipolar geography of culutures, a cultural map of the world representing a

mosaic of the most diverse societies, which, pretty often, join in some wider ensembles or, in contrary, are separated between themselves by nationaladministrative borders.

The Multipolar Theory, first of all, deals with exactly such culturalgeography, or anthropography,with the anthropogeoraphical map of the world .Societies, nations, ethnoses, religions, cultures as complex and dynamicallydeveloping live organisms localized in space are, in the first place, plotted on thismap. Thus, a multipolar map of plurality of human places,a cultural topology of


38/191

the world forms itself . It is taken as the general matrix in the Multipolar Theory,the basic algorithm where political borders, economical networks, natural resourcedistribution areas, and strategic military objects are later placed upon. Society, inits binding to space, is primary and secondary is the rest. Differences betweenhuman places determine all the rest including the most technical and artificialforms of the industrial or military organization of space.

Thus, the philosophy of space, philosophy of place is constructed.. Hettner called it chorography (or chorology), the doctrine of qualitative space26.

The great variety of human places creates a primary structure of the world,and societies co-existing in different sectors of such a world are all equally-rangedand have equal rights and relationships between them develop according to thelogic of life development active societies expand, mobilize, move, develop, passive ones contract, withdraw, and close. Any attempt to control this process isconsciously racist as it automatically serves the interests of some concrete societyin prejudice of the others. Human places pursue the scenarios included in thestructure of their cultures and, on its ground, they solve problems that the

surrounding world brings forth in its transformations. And all of them do this intheir own absolutely original way.

The theory of places was developed by famous Japanese philosopher Kitaro Nishida who, taking up studying European philosophy and, in the first place, phenomenology, came to the decision that among with a typically Europeanmodel of rationality, operation with the logic built upon the principle of identity

of an object, there is an alternative rationality (inherent, e.g., to the Buddhist-Japanese culture) where places27 figure instead of identities. K. Nishida calledit logic of places (basho a place in Japanese). As distinct from identitiesimplying rigid logic constructions yes/no, true/false, the logic of places is based upon the inclusive principle the oppositions can co-exist without rejectingeach other, among with each other in a system of a complex construction of

26 Hettner A. Die Geographie, ihre Geschichte, ihr Wesen und ihre Methoden. Breslau: Ferdinand Hirt, 1927.27 Nishida K. Logik des Ortes. Der Anfang der modernen Philosophie in Japan. Darmstadt: WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft, 1999.


39/191

places ( ). The superior place, according to K. Nishida, is the void or

nothing (mu in Japanese) that includes in itself all the other places andappears to be their foundation. The state (culture, society) is also a place (topos)that precedes and replaces nothing but includes in itself all the rest instead. Allthe other places (within the state/society) are included in it via preserving theiruniqueness, differences, peculiarities, and contradictions. Correspondingly, otherstates/societies, outside Japan, in their turn, are superior places for everythingincluded in them and they obtain their reality, their existence, and their sense out ofthis. Philosophy of K. Nishida and the basho theory perfectly stay on thecommon approach to the problem of place, of space in the Multipolar Theory.

G. Gurvitch: Time as a Sociological Phenomenon

From acknowledgment of the spatial pluralism the Multipolarism Theory28 isexactly built upon, one must proceed to a more politic principle of plurality of times. As the classics of sociological idea (E. Durkheim, M. Moss and, especially,

Russian-European sociologist Georges Gurvitch (1896-1965)) showed, time is asocial category, and, hence, there is some individual special time in each society,if not several ones simultaneously29. This means that different societies, even co-existing in the same physical time, are in different periods from the point of viewof their own history, their own culture. Eternal Return is commonly appropriatefor ethnocentrums. Progressive time directed on realization of common destiny and

common project (in the present and future) comes to ethnoses that have enteredhistory. Different religious cultures have their own ideas of logic and the goal of history, of messianism, of cycles, and objectives. Modern national states operatewith physical time and, in general, separate Western-European models of

28 Matrin Heidegger used to say that the spaciality is Existential of Dasein. Cf. Heidegger M. Sein und Zeit.Tbingen: Niemeyer, 1986. Dugin A. Martin Heidegger and the possibilty of the Russian Philosophy. Op. cit.29 Gurvitch Georges . The Spectrum of Social Time. Dordrecht: D. Reidel, 1964. Cf. Dugin A. The sociology of theimaginary. The introduction into the structural sociology. M., 2010. Idem. The sociology of Russian Society. M.,2010.


40/191

temporality. Postmodern carries with itself one more modification of time post-history, actable recycling of fragments of the past, the ironic time30.

Each place on Earth where either society is located has, thus, its social timeoften combined from different temporalities overlapping each other. Therefore,their historical synchronism (simultaneity) is highly relative: they only refer to panhuman (more precisely, to Western-European physical and calendar time) withone side that entwines into the complex context of local times. The question is notonly that some societies have passed a greater way in common logic of history anda lesser one have the others (this is exactly the racist approach). The very structuresof time can be different in each society and there are no grounds to consider that allof them move in the same direction. Some, maybe, move right where the Westernsociety does and others can well move in an absolutely different direction incorrespondence with the structure of their temporality and its sense but they alsomay move nowhere at all (as in the case of an ethnocentrum). There are no rationalgrounds to draw societies from their own time and throw them in the environmentof the Western time, modernize them, make them contemporaries of the global

moment. For the most presently existing societies, globalization as a naturalmoment of their own history has not yet come and, possibly, will not come ever.Therefore, forcing them reckon with the present global moment is justunreasonable violence.

Plurality of Times as a Norm

The philosophy of Multipolarism, for its part, recognizes plurality of times as a fact and as a normative state of affairs . Different societies live in different timesand have the full right and grounds for this. These times can flow in differentdirections, like streamways, they can fuse and branch but they also can, like lakes,stand still. No-one must performtemporal dictation , impose the others a stage or

30 Dugin A. The sociology of the imaginary. The introduction into the structural sociology. M., 2010. Idem. Postphilosophy. M., 2009.


41/191

era. The Islamic society counts their history since Hegira. The Christians AnnoDomini. The Jewish since the creation of the world. The Hindus, Chinese, andBuddhists also have their own chronological systems. There are some nations onEarth so far who do not know time at all even the cyclic one (some tribes of Australian aborigines), hence, they need no time and nobody dares impose it tothem.

Thus, the Multipolarism Theory pursues a line to a positive interpretation of difference till the logical limit in all spheres. Therefore, it does not represent just ahastily created catalog of ideas and concepts ad hoc appealed for to instantaneouslyoppose unipolarity and globalism but it is ready to carry out its own analysis downto the most profound grounds of the human society and up to philosophicalapprehension of existence, man, space, time, and the world. The world of theMultipolar Theory is multipolar, too. It is differentiated in every respect and inevery projection. It representsan open pluriversum where different social livingorganisms move in different directions and with different speed while merging,repulsing each other, confronting, and creating unions and alliances. If this living

stream of existence of concrete human societies does have any common paradigm,law or algorithm, we can only comprehend it via submerging into thismultitudinary, pluralist, and always differentiated environment.

The multipolar world (between ethnoses, cultures, nations, countries,societies, and people) by no means limits the horizon of communication but justemphasizes that it is necessary to thoroughly take into account cultural peculiarities

of each participant so that this horizon is substantive and sensible. Without this,any exchange can only occur in the most sinister, material, and primitive forms.And approaching to different cultures with a single common pattern is the nearestway to understand nothing at all in them and reduce communication to violenceand imposing a strange cultural code for everybody.


42/191

Chapter 3. To the Multipolarism Theory. Strategic Grounds

1 Poles and Great Spaces

The Idea of a Pole in the Multipolar Prospective

From consideration of philosophical grounds of the Multipolarism Theorywe proceed to its strategic aspects.

Let us start with what is understood as a pole in the strategic sense.First, Multipolarism, as a set-off to unipolarity and unipolar globalization (in

its limited, American-Imperialist, and broad, common Western sense), supposesthat the map of the future world must be structurized so as there are several centersof power not possessing the absolute dominance in relation to each other andallowing different societies (down to the microlevel) realize free choice of a block to join. These poles must be more than two. This is principal. This position resultsfrom the analysis of the actual state of affairs. At the moment, none of the major

powers, or even a block of major powers, has sufficient potential to lay a claim onsole strategic opposition to the power of the US and the NATO countries. The bipolar world finished with the disintegration of the USSR, and after the USSR,there are no serious challengers for the status of the second pole. Therefore, French politician Hubert Vidrine suggested to use the term hyper power instead of super power (relating to the US) after 1991 to emphasize their asymmetric

dominance whereas, in the stand of the two super powers, a certain symmetry (atleast, in the strategic potential) was observed till the end. Neither modern Russia,nor China (as the most appropriate candidates for the status of the second pole)are capable to mobilize the capacities and resources sufficient to compete with theUS in the strategic sphere. Russia has problems with economy, demography, andmany unsolved social problems and China where, in contrary, everything is alright

with these moments, has a lack of natural resources and developed nuclear infrastructure. It is needless to say about any other challengers for the second pole.


43/191

The strategic model of the multipolar world results exactly from this. If there is no power now that would be capable to challenge the sole domination of the US in aworld scale, it is necessary to create a coalition of several blocks, which, pursuingtheir own strategic interests in the regional context and even contradicting to eachother in some matters, and even being based upon different civilization types andideologies, could simultaneously organize several poles united with a generalstrategic idea:blocking the American hegemony .

However, in the condition where some countries found themselves today, allof them are not virtually suitable for the role of a pole even in such collective and plural interpretation. The pole of the multipolar world, as well as this worlditself, must be composite, i.e., represent a result of strategic integration. In other words, the strategic pole of the multipolar world must be previously created.

Theoretically, the multipolar world pole must represent a powerful military,economical, demographic, political, geographical, and civilization formationcapable to perform strategic integration of the neighbouring territories, acting as aresulting vector of a wide range of regional interests, and representing them jointly

before the face of globalism and unipolarity recognized as a challenge. Whereby,such a pole must certainly be differentiated enough by its internal structure so as toserve as a center of attraction for various, often contradictive, regional powers and political forces. And, at the same time, it must be capable to form a system of strategic partnership with other potential poles of the multipolar world even withthose it has local disagreements with.

A structural example of what could be a typical form of the multipolar world pole is the European Union. This is a political space united in a civilization,historical, cultural, economical, social, energetic way, etc. Assuming that Europewas the arena of a bloody stand of European powers, their aggressive antagonism,the cruelest World Wars, its territory the European place was graduallyintegrated and, through a series of complicated and problematic situations, has

come to the level of federal statehood today headed by, though symbolical, but the president (Herman Van Rompuy).


44/191

Geopolitically, the European identity is twofold, there are present as atlantist(Sea), as continental (Land) features and, correspondingly, centers of forces in it.

The atlantist identity of Europe is expressed by the fact that it, in general,supports the unipolar model, but strives to assure distribution of roles within theCore (of the Rich North), so that, by pursuing the global strategy, Washingtonalso takes European interests into account (a multilateral approach multilateralism). The continentalist identity of Europe (represented traditionally, inthe first place, by France and Germany and also by other major industrial countries Italy and Spain) well combines with the exactly multipolar approach, aspires toindependence from the US and limitation of the American hegemony in a worldscale, to transform Europe into a self-consistent geopolitical center of force, tocreate a sociopolitical system, not so much on the ground of liberalism as on the principles of social democracy (not Anglo-Saxon individualism but Europeancontinental sociality and solidarity), to create independent European militaryforces, and, ultimately, to transform Europe into an independent pole. If permittingthe continental identity to overpower the atlantist one in Europe, we, in prospect,

obtain an accomplished pole of the multipolar world in the form of the EuropeanUnion.

It is possible to imagine a scenario analogical with the European integrationin other areas of the world as well. Integration of the Post-Soviet space aroundRussia on similar principles is one of the versions of a new pole creation.Moreover, the principal moments here are integration of Russia with Belorussia

and the Ukraine in the west and Kazakhstan in the south with creation of a flexibleintegration field attractive for the neighbouring countries not only those earlier constituting the USSR but also the ones that did not (Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia,Serbia, Macedonia in the west, Mongolia in the east) around these four nuclear states.

Analogical poles can be and are already created in the course of regional

integration in other areas as well. China and India already represent almost finished poles by their demographic characteristics. Colossal economical potential of Japan


45/191


46/191


47/191

Great Spaces preserving relative independence in its structure as well as theautonomy of the smaller units states, ethnic and religious groups, etc. will be preserved inside the Great Space itself.

The Status of a Civilization and the Principle of Empire

If we cast a glance on history, we can take two forms of social integration asa precedent of Great Spaces 1) the cultural, whose expression iscivilization, and 2) the political one becoming apparent in the form of an empire . A civilizationappears to be a Great Space united with philosophy, culture, the way of thinking,terminological instrumentation based on one or several languages, in some cases,with religion or cult, but it lacks strategic unity and centralized administration. AnEmpire is, in the first place, exactly unity and centralization from the point of viewof political power, and cultural affinity of societies constituting an empire issecondary and derivative.

Both historical forms of the Great Space differ with the combination

(though in principally different proportions) of local diversity (government forms,ethnical and religious identity organization, etc.) and the single origin common for everyone. Empires could be built on the ground of a civilization (e.g., byAlexander the Great) and disappeared empires used to leave behind a commoncivilization field (e.g., the Islamic world after the Caliphates disintegration). Thisdemonstrates that a Civilization and an Empire are historically interconvertible

phenomena: one can coexist with the other or arise on the place of the other. Thisextremely important note demonstrates that there exists continuity between acivilization (cultural unity) and an empire (political unity). And this continuity isexpressed in terms of space: both a civilization and an empire represent Greatspaces in the geopolitical and sociological sense; the societies situated within thisspace have some similar paradigmtic elements in their structures. If taking into

account that it is a society that produces a space (H. Lefebvre) and that itsstructures reflect and simultaneously constitute this space, this regularity becomes


48/191

easily explainable. All historical Great Spaces (both empires and civilizations)were situated in concrete geographical areas with floating boundaries but with thecommon core and common space structure. Therefore, it is possible to state thatonce united territories may, sooner or later, be integrated again at a new historicalconvolution at least until the common structure of a space remains unchangedand, correspondingly, reflects itself in the societies living in and organizing thisspace (the accommodating environment).

A plenty of examples for this can be made. Thus, the steppe zones of Eurasiawere united by one or another nomadic nation with periodical constancy, becominga part of a united steppe empire or several empires. From the Scythians,Sarmatians, Turks, Khazars to the Mongolians and Russians, these territories were periodically aggregated into a single strategic space under different ethnicalcores, different ideologies, and social systems. This zone represents thegeopolitical Turan where some traces of the common Eurasian culture andcivilization that used to unite different ethnoses, tribes, and religions can bediscovered so far. This cultural unity obtained its maximum expression in the

Mongolian and later in the Russian statehood (Empire).Another example is the modern Europe. Once it represented the space of the

Roman Empire that disintegrated into two constituents (the Eastern and WesternEmpire) first and in the Modern Time, finally split into sovereign national states.However, the European culture and European civilization remained common for different European ethnoses and, in many centuries after the empire disappeared,

political unity of Europe has revived in a new quality in the form of the EuropeanUnion.

These examples demonstrate us that a Great Space as the main integrationconcept of the Multipolarism Theory is extremely productive for operating with sodissimilar phenomena like culture and politics. In a Great Space as anindependent category, these phenomena coincide in a sociological matrix that

precedes their final formation and appears to be a model of attitude of severalsocieties to a single space comprehended and perceived as single and common.


49/191


50/191

loose local autonomies and different parts of the whole with different grades of

sociopolitical integration .In this sense, the Empire theoreticallycombines with federalism but

contradicts the idea of a national state that performs complete unification of the population in legal, educational, linguistic, and cultural aspects and also does notoperate with collective actors (as against an Empire supposing loose politicalindependence of individual constituents within its limits), but does withindividuals.

If an Empire after all sounds too definite and a Civilization, in contrary,too vague, the term Great Space is optimal from all points of view and preciselyreflects the very essence of the Multipolarism Theory.

2 The Structure of Identity in the Multipolar World

The New Taxonomy

Documents

Geopolitics of Multipolar World