The Fourth Political Theory by Alexander Dugin

7/25/2019 The Fourth Political Theory by Alexander Dugin

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-fourth-political-theory-by-alexander-dugin 1/171



The Fourth Political Theory



Alexander Dugin


ARKTOSLondon 2012



First English edition u!lished in 2012 !y Ar"tos #edia Ltd$

%oyright to the English edition & 2012 !y Ar"tos #edia Ltd$

All rights reser'ed$ (o art o) this !oo" *ay !e reroduced or utilised in any )or* or !y

any *eans +,hether electronic or *echanical-. including hotocoying. recording or !yany in)or*ation storage and retrie'al syste*. ,ithout er*ission in ,riting )ro* the u!lisher$

Printed in the /nited Kingdo*$

is!n 978-1-907166-65-5

% classi)icationSocial )orecasting. )uture studies +3FFR-Social 4 olitical hilosohy +5PS-

Translation #ar" Sle!oda 4 #ichael #iller*anEditor 3ohn $ #organProo)reader #ichael 3$ roo"s%o'er Design Andreas (ilssonLayout Daniel Fri!erg

ARKTOS #EDA LTD,,,$ar"tos$co*



Table of Contents

A (ote )ro* the Editor

Fore,ord !y Alain Soral 6hy 6e Should Read Alexander Duginntroduction To e or (ot to e7

1$ The irth o) the %oncet

2$ Dasein as an Actor

8$ The %riti9ue o) #onotonic Processes

:$ The Re'ersi!ility o) Ti*e

;$ <lo!al Transition and its Ene*ies

=$ %onser'atis* and Post*odernity

>$ ?%i'ilisation@ as an deological %oncet

$ The Trans)or*ation o) the Le)t in the T,entyB)irst %entury

C$ Li!eralis* and ts #eta*orhoses

10$ The Ontology o) the Future

11$ The (e, Political Anthroology The Political #an and 5is #utations

12$ Fourth Political Practice

18$ <ender in the Fourth Political Theory

1:$ Against the Post*odern 6orld

Aendix

Aendix



A Note from the !itor

The !ul" o) the text in this !oo" ,as u!lished as Chetvertaia politicheskaiateoriia. ,hich ,as u!lished in St$ Peters!urg in 200C !y A*hora$ The text has !eenre'ised !y the author. and additional chaters ha'e !een added to this edition )ro* other,ritings !y Pro)essor Dugin ,hich ,ere u!lished later. dealing ,ith the sa*e the*e$ /nless other,ise indicated. the )ootnotes to the text ,ere included !y the authorhi*sel)$ Additional )ootnotes ,hich ,ere added !y *e )or re)erence are so *ar"ed$ 6heresources in other languages ha'e !een cited. ha'e atte*ted to relace the* ,ith existingEnglishBlanguage editions$ %itations to ,or"s )or ,hich could locate no translation areretained in their original language$ 6e! site addresses )or onBline sources ,ere 'eri)ied asaccurate and a'aila!le during the eriod o) #arch through #ay. 2012$ ,ould li"e to than" Alain Soral. ,ho allo,ed us to use his Pre)ace )ro* theFrench edition o) this !oo" here. and also Sergio Knie. ,ho translated it into English$ ,ould also li"e to extend *y gratitude to #ar" Sle!oda. ,ho sent *any hours ,or"ing onthe translation and i*ro'ing it to #ichael #iller*an. ,ho ro'ided us ,ith thetranslations )or chaters = through C and to #ichael 3$ roo"s. ,ho roo)read the*anuscrit$ Others ,ho 'olunteered their ti*e in ,or"ing on the translation ,ere (atellaSerans"aa. hirayr Ananyan. (ina Kouriano'a. Fedor S*irno'. Galentin %heredni"o'.%yrill LaHare)). and 'an Fedoro'$ also extend *y areciation to #ar" Dyal. ,ho heled !y trac"ing do,n the source o) a 'ery tric"y (ietHsche 9uotation cited in the text$

3O5( $ #OR<A( G angalore. ndia. #ay 2012



Fore"or! by Alain #oral$ %hy %e #houl! &ea! Ale'an!er (u)in

%hen the notions o) Right and Le)t ha'e !eco*e olitically *eaningless. in the6est as *uch as e'ery,here else in the ,orld ,hen li!erals and li!ertarians agree on theessentials ,hen the three grand olitical theories o) the T,entieth century I caitalis*.%o**unis* and )ascis* I ha'e ulti*ately ro'en incaa!le o) go'erning eoles eacea!ly. ,hat is le)t to do7 According to Alexander Dugin. a teacher o) sociology and geoolitics at thereno,ned Ler*onto' /ni'ersity o) #osco,. and one o) the *ost in)luential intellectuals inRussia. only one. radical solution re*ains to de'ise a di))erent aroach. a Fourth PoliticalTheory$ %oncetualising and theorising it such is the ai* o) the resent !oo"$ The thought o) this !rilliant #osco, intellectual. ,hich transcends our 6esternideological di'ides and *ediaBconditioned reactions. ,ill not )ail to surrise con)or*ists)or it suggests that in order )or us to )ace the )uture in a resolute and 'ictorious ,ay. ,eshould re'ert to traditional )or*s o) sirituality$ According to Dugin. the ri*ary target*ust !e 6estern ost*odernis* ,e *ust ,age ,ar uon this thalassocratic E*ire I a*or!id !lend o) the society o) the sectacleJ1 and consu*er culture I and its lan )orulti*ate ,orld do*ination$ n Fourth Political Theory. Dugin sho,s that the only ,ay to !uild a *ultiolar,orld. )ounded on authentic 'alues. is to resolutely turn one@s !ac" on the Atlanticist 6estand its )alse 'alues$ And ho, can this !e achie'ed7 Only !y unconditionally reser'ing the geooliticalso'ereignty o) the o,ers o) the Eurasian continent I Russia. %hina. ran and ndia I,hich sa)eguard the )reedo* o) all other eoles on the lanet$ A genuine *anual )or cultural guerrilla ,ar)are. Fourth Political Theory is a !oo"that can !e seen as a co*le*ent to *y o,n Comprendre l’empire[2] +,hich has !eentranslated into Russian !y )riends o) Alexander Dugin@s-$ Dugin in #osco,. +and others- in Paris$$$,hile ,e only *et )or the )irst ti*e in3anuary 2011. and ne'er consulted ,ith one another. our ideas I no dou!t )or*ulateddi))erently I agree on all the i*ortant oints )ro* the need to unite the 'alueBcentredRight and the la!ourBcentred Le)t to the i*erati'e need )or resistance against the E*ire.)ro* the aeal to Tradition as ,ell as to *any other concets$$$ Once again. this sho,s that the only ,orth,hile international is that o) the sirit. led !y good *en Alain Soral



+Translated !y Sergio Knie-



*ntro!uction$ To +e or Not to +e,

*n today@s ,orld. olitics aears to !e a thing o) the ast. at least as ,e used to

"no, it$ Li!eralis* ersistently )ought against those o) its olitical ene*ies ,hich hado))ered alternati'e syste*s that is. conser'atis*. *onarchis*. traditionalis*. )ascis*.socialis*. and %o**unis*. and )inally. !y the end o) the T,entieth century. had de)eatedthe* all$ t ,ould !e logical to assu*e that olitics ,ould !eco*e li!eral. ,hile all o) its*arginalised oonents. sur'i'ing in the eriheral )ringes o) glo!al society. ,ouldreconsider their strategies and )or*ulate a ne, united )ront according to Alain deenoist@sJ8 periphery against the centre.[4] nstead. at the !eginning o) the T,entyB)irstcentury. e'erything )ollo,ed a di))erent scrit$ Li!eralis*. ,hich had al,ays insisted on deBe*hasising the i*ortance o) olitics.*ade the decision to a!olish olitics co*letely a)ter its triu*h$ #ay!e this ,as to re'ent the rise o) olitical alternati'es and to ensure its eternal rule. or !ecause its oliticalagenda had si*ly exired ,ith the a!sence o) ideological ri'als. the existence o) ,hich%arl Sch*ittJ; had considered indisensa!le )or the roer construction o) a olitical osition$J= Regardless o) the rationale. li!eralis* did e'erything ossi!le to ensure thecollase o) olitics$ At the sa*e ti*e. li!eralis* itsel) has changed. assing )ro* the le'elo) ideas. olitical rogra**es and declarations to the le'el o) reality. enetrating the 'ery)lesh o) the social )a!ric. ,hich !eca*e su))used ,ith li!eralis* and. in turn. it !egan tosee* li"e the natural order o) things$ This ,as resented not as a olitical rocess. !ut as anatural and organic one$ As a conse9uence o) such a historical trans)or*ation. all other olitical ideologies. assionately )euding against each other during the last century. losttheir currency$ %onser'atis*. )ascis* and %o**unis*. together ,ith their *any'ariations. lost the !attle. and triu*hant li!eralis* *utated into a li)estyle consu*eris*.indi'idualis*. and a ost*odern *ani)estation o) the )rag*ented and su!Bolitical !eing$Politics !eca*e !ioolitical.J> *o'ing to the indi'idual and su!Bindi'idual le'el$ t turnsout that it ,as not only the de)eated olitical ideologies that le)t the stage. !ut olitics itsel).and e'en li!eralis*. in its ideological )or*s. exited$ This is ,hy it !eca*e nearlyi*ossi!le to i*agine an alternati'e )or* o) olitics$ Those ,ho do not agree ,ithli!eralis* )ind the*sel'es in a di))icult situation I the triu*hant ene*y has dissol'edand disaeared no, they are le)t struggling against the air$ 5o, can one engage in olitics. i) there is no olitics7 There is only one ,ay out I to reect the classical olitical theories. !oth ,innersand losers. strain our i*aginations. seiHe the reality o) a ne, ,orld. correctly deciher thechallenges o) ost*odernity. and create so*ething ne, I so*ething !eyond the olitical !attles o) the (ineteenth and T,entieth centuries$ Such an aroach is an in'itation to thede'elo*ent o) the Fourth Political Theory I !eyond %o**unis*. )ascis* andli!eralis*$

To *o'e )or,ard to,ards the de'elo*ent o) a Fourth Political Theory. it isnecessary to

M reconsider the olitical history o) recent centuries )ro* ne, ositions !eyond the



)ra*e,or"s and clichNs o) the old ideologies M realise and !eco*e a,are o) the ro)ound structure o) the glo!al society e*erging !e)ore our eyes M correctly deciher the aradig* o) ost*odernity M learn to oose not the olitical idea. rogra**e or strategy. !ut the ?o!ecti'e@

reality o) the status 9uo. the *ost social asect o) the aolitical. )ractured +ostB- society M and )inally. construct an autono*ous olitical *odel ,hich o))ers a ne, ,ay anda roect )or the ,orld o) deadloc"s. !lind alleys. and the endless recycling o) the ?sa*e oldthings@ +ostBhistory. according to audrillard-$J

This !oo" is dedicated to this 'ery ro!le* I as the !eginning o) the de'elo*ento) a Fourth Political Theory. through an o'er'ie, and reBexa*ination o) the )irst three olitical theories. and to the closelyBrelated ideologies o) (ational olshe'is* andEurasianis* that ca*e 'ery close indeed to the Fourth Political Theory$ This is not dog*a.nor a co*lete syste*. nor a )inished roect$ This is an in'itation to olitical creati'ity. astate*ent o) intuitions and conectures. an analysis o) ne, conditions. and an atte*t toreconsider the ast$

The Fourth Political Theory is not the ,or" o) a single author. !ut is rather a trendco*rising a ,ide sectru* o) ideas. researches. analyses. rognoses. and roects$ Anyonethin"ing in this 'ein can contri!ute his o,n ideas$ As such. *ore and *ore intellectuals. hilosohers. historians. scientists. scholars. and thin"ers ,ill resond to this call$

t is signi)icant that the !oo". Against i!eralism"[#] !y the reno,ned Frenchintellectual Alain de enoist. ,hich has also !een u!lished in Russian !y A*hora. has asu!title To$ards the Fourth Political Theory$ /ndou!tedly. *any things can !e said on thisthe*e !y reresentati'es o) !oth the old Le)t and the old Right and. *ost li"ely. e'en !yli!erals the*sel'es. ,ho are concetualising 9ualitati'e changes to their o,n olitical lat)or*. e'en ,hile olitics is disaearing$

For *y o,n country. Russia. the Fourth Political Theory. a*ong other things. has ani**ense ractical signi)icance$ The *aority o) Russian eole su))er their integration intoglo!al society as a loss o) their o,n identity$ The Russian oulation had al*ost entirelyreected the li!eral ideology in the 1CC0s$ ut it is also aarent that a return to the illi!eral olitical ideologies o) the T,entieth century. such as %o**unis* or )ascis*. is unli"ely. asthese ideologies ha'e already )ailed and ro'en the*sel'es une9ual to the challenge o)oosing li!eralis*. to say nothing o) the *oral costs o) totalitarianis*$

There)ore. in order to )ill this olitical and ideological 'acuu*. Russia needs a ne, olitical idea$ For Russia. li!eralis* does not )it. !ut %o**unis* and )ascis* are e9uallyunacceta!le$ %onse9uently. ,e need a Fourth Political Theory$ And i). )or so*e readers.this is a 9uestion o) )reedo* o) choice and the realisation o) a olitical ,ill. ,hich canal,ays !e 'ie,ed )ro* a ositi'e or negati'e osition. then )or Russia. it is a *atter o) li)eor death I ?to !e or not to !e@. in ter*s o) 5a*let@s eternal 9uestion$ ) Russia chooses ?to !e@. then it ,ill auto*atically !ring a!out the creation o) aFourth Political Theory$ Other,ise. )or Russia there re*ains only the choice ?not to !e@.,hich ,ill *ean to 9uietly lea'e the historical and ,orld stage. dissol'ing into a glo!alorder ,hich is not created or go'erned !y us$



1 The +irth of the Conce.t

The n! of the T"entieth Century / the n! of o!ernity

The T,entieth century has ended. !ut it is only no, that ,e are truly !eginning torealise and to understand this )act$ The T,entieth century ,as the century o) ideology$ ). inthe re'ious centuries. religion. dynasties. estates. classes. and nationBstates layed anenor*ous role in the li'es o) eoles and societies. then. in the T,entieth century. oliticshad shi)ted into a urely ideological real*. ha'ing redra,n the *a o) ethnicities.ci'ilisations. and the ,orld in a ne, ,ay$ On the one hand. olitical ideologies reresentedearly and deely rooted ci'ilisational tendencies$ On the other hand. they ,ere co*letelyinno'ati'e$ All olitical ideologies. ha'ing reached the ea" o) their do*inion and in)luence inthe T,entieth century. ,ere the roduct o) the ne,. *odern era. e*!odying its sirit. al!eitin di))erent ,ays and under di))erent sy*!ols$ Today. ,e are raidly lea'ing this era$ Thuse'eryone sea"s. *ore and *ore )re9uently. o) the ?crisis o) ideology@. or e'en the ?end o)ideology@$J10 For instance. the existence o) a state ideology is exlicitly denied in the%onstitution o) the Russian Federation$ t is ti*e to address this issue *ore closely$

The Three ain *!eolo)ies an! their Fate in the T"entieth Century

The three *ain ideologies o) the T,entieth century ,ere 1- li!eralism +Le)t and Right- 2- Communism +including !oth #arxis* and socialis*. along ,ith socialde*ocracy- 8- %ascism +including (ational Socialis* and other 'arieties o) the Third 6ayJ11 I Franco@s (ational Syndicalis*. Pern@s ?3usticialis*@. SalaHar@s regi*e. etc$-$

They )ought a*ong the*sel'es to the death. creating. in essence. the entire dra*aticand !loody olitical history o) the T,entieth century$ t is logical to nu*!er theseideologies +or olitical theories- !ased in art on their signi)icance. as ,ell as in the ordero) their occurrence. as ,as done a!o'e$ The )irst olitical theory is li!eralism$ t arose )irst. as early as the Eighteenthcentury. and turned out to !e the *ost sta!le and success)ul ideology. ha'ing ulti*ately re'ailed o'er all its ri'als$ As a result o) this 'ictory. it ro'ed. a*ong other )actors. the usti)ication o) its clai* to the entire legacy o) the Enlighten*ent$ Today. it is o!'ious thatit ,as li!eralis* that ,as the !est )it )or *odernity$ 5o,e'er. this legacy ,as disuted



earlier. dra*atically. acti'ely. and. at ti*es. con'incingly. !y another olitical theory I%o**unis*$ t is reasona!le to call Communism" *uch li"e socialis* in all its 'arieties. thesecond olitical theory$ t aeared later than li!eralis* as a critical resonse to thee*ergence o) the !ourgeoisBcaitalist syste*. ,hich ,as the ideological exression o)

li!eralis*$ And. )inally. )ascis* is the third olitical theory$ As a contender )or its o,nunderstanding o) *odernity@s sirit. *any researchers. articularly 5annah Arendt.J12 in articular. reasona!ly consider totalitarianis* one o) the olitical )or*s o) *odernity$Fascis*. ho,e'er. turned to,ard the ideas and sy*!ols o) traditional society$ n so*ecases. this ga'e rise to eclecticis*. in others I to the desire o) conser'ati'es to lead theiro,n re'olution instead o) resisting another@s. and leading their society in the oositedirection. such as Arthur #oeller 'an den ruc".J18 D*itry #ereHh"o's"y.J1: and so on$ Fascis* e*erged later than the other *aor olitical theories and 'anished !e)orethe*$ The alliance o) the )irst olitical theory ,ith the second olitical theory. as ,ell as5itler@s suicidal geoolitical *iscalculations. caused it to exire re*aturely$ The third olitical theory ,as a 'icti* o) ?ho*icide@. or erhas ?suicide@. not li'ing long enough tosee old age and natural decay. in contrast to the ideology o) the So'iet /nion$ There)ore.this !loody 'a*iric ghost tinged ,ith an aura o) ?a!solute e'il@ is attracti'e to thedecadent tastes o) ost*odernity. and is still used as a !ogey*an to )righten hu*anity$ 6ith its disaearance. )ascis* cleared the )ield )or the !attle !et,een the )irst andsecond olitical theories$ This !attle too" the )or* o) the %old 6ar and ga'e !irth to thestrategic geo*etry o) the !iolar ,orld ,hich lasted )or nearly hal) a century$ y 1CC1. the)irst olitical theory. li!eralis*. had de)eated the second olitical theory. socialis*$ This*ar"ed the glo!al decline o) %o**unis*$ As a result. !y the end o) the T,entieth century. li!eral theory is the only onere*aining o) the three olitical theories o) *odernity that is caa!le o) *o!ilising the 'ast*asses throughout the entire ,orld$ et. no, that it is le)t on its o,n. e'eryone sea"s inunison a!out ?the end o) ideology@$ 6hy7

The n! of iberalism an! the Arri2al of Postliberalism

t turns out that the triu*h o) li!eralis*. the )irst olitical theory. coincided ,ith itsend$ This only see*s to !e a aradox$ Li!eralis* had !een an ideology )ro* the start$ t ,as not as dog*atic as #arxis*. !ut ,as no less hilosohical. grace)ul. and re)ined$ t ideologically oosed #arxis* and)ascis*. not only underta"ing a technological ,ar )or sur'i'al. !ut also de)ending its rightto *onoolise its o,n i*age o) the )uture$ 6hile the other co*eting ideologies ,ere inexistence. li!eralis* continued and gre, stronger recisely as an ideology. in other ,ordsas a set o) ideas. 'ie,oints. and roects that are tyical )or a historical su!ect$ Each o)the three olitical theories had its o,n su!ect$ The su!ect o) %o**unis* ,as class$ Fascis*@s su!ect ,as the state. in talianFascis* under #ussolini. or race in 5itler@s (ational Socialis*$ n li!eralis*. the su!ect,as reresented !y the individual . )reed )ro* all )or*s o) collective identity and any?*e*!ershi@ +l’appartenance-$



6hile the ideological struggle had )or*al oonents. entire nations and societies. atleast theoretically. ,ere a!le to select their su!ect o) choice I that o) class. racis* orstatis*. or indi'idualis*$ The 'ictory o) li!eralis* resol'ed this 9uestion the indi'idual !eca*e the nor*ati'e su!ect ,ithin the )ra*e,or" o) all *an"ind$ This is ,hen the heno*enon o) glo!alisation entered the stage. the *odel o) a

ostBindustrial society *a"es itsel) "no,n. and the ost*odern era !egins$ Fro* no, on.the indi'idual su!ect is no longer the result o) choice. !ut is a "ind o) *andatory gi'en$#an is )reed )ro* his ?*e*!ershi@ in a co**unity and )ro* any collecti'e identity. andthe ideology o) ?hu*an rights@ !eco*es ,idely acceted. at least in theory. and is ractically co*ulsory$J1;

5u*anity under li!eralis*. co*rised entirely o) indi'iduals. is naturally dra,nto,ard uni'ersality and see"s to !eco*e glo!al and uni)ied$ Thus. the roects o) ?,orldgo'ern*ent@ or glo!alis* are !orn$ A ne, le'el o) technological de'elo*ent *a"es it ossi!le to achie'eindeendence )ro* the class structuralisation o) industrial societies. in other ,ords. ostBindustrialis*$ The 'alues o) rationalis*. scientis*. and ositi'is* are recognised as ?'eiled )or*so) reressi'e. totalitarian olicies@. or the grand narrati'e. and are criticised$ At the sa*eti*e. this is acco*anied !y the glori)ication o) total )reedo* and the indeendence o) theindi'idual )ro* any "ind o) li*its. including reason. *orality. identity +social. ethnic. ore'en gender-. disciline. and so on$ This is the condition o) ost*odernity$ At this stage. li!eralis* ceases to !e the )irst olitical theory and !eco*es the only ostBolitical ractice$ Fu"uya*a@s ?end o) history@J1= arri'es. econo*ics in the )or* o)the glo!al caitalist *ar"et. relaces olitics. and states and nations are dissol'ed in the*elting ot o) ,orld glo!alisation$ 5a'ing triu*hed. li!eralis* disaears and turns into a di))erent entity I into ostli!eralis*$ t no longer has olitical di*ensions. nor does it reresent )ree choice. !utinstead !eco*es a "ind o) historically deter*inistic ?destiny@$ This is the source o) thethesis a!out ostBindustrial society ?econo*ics as destiny@$ Thus. the !eginning o) the T,entyB)irst century coincides ,ith the end o) ideology I that is. all three o) the*$ Each *et a di))erent end the third olitical theory ,asdestroyed in its ?youth@. the second died o) decreit old age. and the )irst ,as re!orn asso*ething else I as ostli!eralis* and the ?glo!al *ar"et society@$ n any case. the )or*,hich all three olitical theories too" in the T,entieth century is no longer use)ul. e))ecti'e.or rele'ant$ They lac" the a!ility to exlain conte*orary reality or to hel us understandcurrent e'ents. and are incaa!le o) resonding to the ne, glo!al challenges$ The need )or the Fourth Political Theory ste*s )ro* this assess*ent$

The Fourth Political Theory as &esistance to the #tatus 3uo

The Fourth Political Theory ,ill not si*ly !e handed to us ,ithout any e))ort$ t*ay or *ay not e*erge$ The rere9uisite )or its aearance is dissent$ That is. dissentagainst ostli!eralis* as a uni'ersal ractice. against glo!alisation. against ost*odernity.against the ?end o) history@. against the status 9uo. and against the inertia o) the rocesses



o) ci'ilisation at the da,n o) the T,entyB)irst century$ The status 9uo and this inertia do not resuose any olitical theories ,hatsoe'er$A glo!al ,orld can only !e ruled !y the la,s o) econo*ics and the uni'ersal *orality o)?hu*an rights@$ All olitical decisions are relaced !y technical ones$ #achinery andtechnology su!stitute )or all else$ The French hilosoher. Alain de enoist. ter*s this la

gouvernance. or ?*icro*anage*ent@$ #anagers and technocrats ta"e the lace o) the olitician ,ho *a"es historical decisions. oti*ising the logistics o) *anage*ent$ #asseso) eole are e9uated to a *ass o) identical o!ects$ For this reason. ostli!eral reality. or.rather. 'irtuality increasingly dislacing reality )ro* itsel). leads straight to the co*letea!olition o) olitics$ So*e *ay argue that the li!erals lie to us ,hen they sea" o) the ?end o) ideology@+this ,as *y de!ate ,ith the hilosoher. Alexander ino'ie'-J1> ?in reality@. theyre*ain !elie'ers in their ideology and si*ly deny all others the right to exist$ This is notexactly true$ 6hen li!eralis* trans)or*s )ro* !eing an ideological arrange*ent to the onlycontent o) our extant social and technological existence. then it is no longer an ?ideology@. !ut an existential )act. an o!ecti'e order o) things$ t also causes any atte*t to challengeits sure*acy as !eing not only di))icult. !ut also )oolish$ n the ost*odern era. li!eralis**o'es )ro* the shere o) the su!ect to the shere o) the o!ect$ Potentially. this ,ill leadto the co*lete relace*ent o) reality !y 'irtuality$

The Fourth Political Theory is concei'ed as an alternati'e to ostli!eralis*. !ut notas one ideological arrange*ent in relation to another$ nstead. it is as an incororeal ideaoosed to cororeal *atter as a ossi!ility entering into con)lict ,ith the actuality. as that,hich is yet to co*e into !eing attac"ing that ,hich is already in existence$ At the sa*e ti*e. the Fourth Political Theory cannot !e the continuation o) eitherthe second olitical theory or the third$ The end o) )ascis*. *uch li"e the end o)%o**unis*. ,as not ust an accidental *isunderstanding. !ut the exression o) a ratherlucid historical logic$ They challenged the sirit o) *odernity +)ascis* did so al*ostoenly. %o**unis* *ore co'ertly see the re'ie, o) the So'iet eriod as a secial.?eschatological@ 'ersion o) the traditional society !y #i"hail S$ Agurs"yJ1 or SergeiKaraB#urHa-J1C and lost$J20

This *eans that the struggle ,ith the ost*odern *eta*orhosis o) li!eralis* intothe )or* o) ost*odernity and glo!alisation should !e 9ualitati'ely di))erent it *ust !e !ased on ne, rinciles and roose ne, strategies$

(e'ertheless. the starting oint o) this ideology is recisely the reection o) the 'eryessence o) ost*odernity$ This starting oint is ossi!le I !ut neither guaranteed. norordained !y )ate I !ecause it arises )ro* *an@s )ree ,ill and his sirit. rather than ani*ersonal historical rocess$ 5o,e'er. this essence +*uch li"e the rationale !ehind *odernity itsel) Ii*erceti!le earlier. !ut later realising its essence so )ully that it exhausted its internalresources and s,itched to the *ode o) ironically recycling its earlier stages- is so*ethingco*letely ne,. re'iously un"no,n. and only sur*ised intuiti'ely and )rag*entarilyduring the earlier stages o) ideological history and the ideological struggle$ The Fourth Political Theory is a ?crusade@ against M ost*odernity. M the ostBindustrial society. M li!eral thought realised in ractice.



M and glo!alisation. as ,ell as its its logistical and technological !ases$

) the third olitical theory criticised caitalis* )ro* the Right. and the second )ro*the Le)t. then the ne, stage no longer )eatures this olitical toograhy it is i*ossi!le to

deter*ine ,here the Right and the Le)t are located in relation to ostli!eralis*$ There areonly t,o ositions co*liance +the centre- and dissent +the erihery-$ oth ositions areglo!al$ The Fourth Political Theory is the a*alga*ation o) a co**on roect and arises)ro* a co**on i*ulse to e'erything that ,as discarded. toled. and hu*iliated duringthe course o) constructing ?the society o) the sectacle@ +constructing ost*odernity-$ ?Thestone that the !uilders reected has !eco*e the cornerstone@$J21 The hilosoherAlexander Se"ats"y rightly ointed out the signi)icance o) ?*arginalia@ in the )or*ation o)a ne, hilosohical age. suggesting the ter* ?*etahysics o) de!ris@ as a *etahor$

The +attle for Postmo!ernity

The Fourth Political Theory deals ,ith the ne, reincarnation o) an old ene*y$ tchallenges li!eralis*. *uch li"e the second and third olitical theories o) the ast. !ut itdoes so under ne, conditions$ The rincial no'elty o) these conditions lies in the )act thato) all the three great olitical ideologies. only li!eralis* secured the right to the legacy !ehind the sirit o) *odernity and o!tained the right to create the ?end o) history@ !ased onits o,n re*ises$ Theoretically. the end o) history could ha'e !een di))erent a ?lanetary Reich@. i)the (aHis had ,on. or ?glo!al %o**unis*@. had the %o**unists !een right$ 5o,e'er. the?end o) history@ has turned out to !e. recisely. li!eral$ The hilosoher AlexandreKoQ'eJ22 ,as one o) the )irst to redict this his ideas ,ere later restated !y FrancisFu"uya*a$J28 ut since this is the case. then any aeals to *odernity and itsassu*tions. to ,hich the reresentati'es o) the second +to a greater extent- and third olitical theories aealed in 'arying degrees. lose their rele'ance$ They lost the !attle )or*odernity as the li!erals triu*hed$ For this reason. the issue o) *odernity. and.incidentally. o) *odernisation. *ay !e re*o'ed )ro* the agenda$ (o, the !attle )or ostB*odernity !egins$ t is here that ne, rosects oen u )or the Fourth Political Theory$ The "ind o) ost*odernity ,hich is currently !eing realised in ractice. ostli!eral ost*odernity.cancels out the strict logic o) *odernity itsel) I a)ter the goal had !een achie'ed. the stesta"en to reach it lose their *eaning$ The ressure o) the ideological shell !eco*es lessrigid$ The dictatorshi o) ideas is relaced !y the dictatorshi o) things. login ass,ords.and !ar codes$ (e, holes are aearing in the )a!ric o) ost*odern reality$ As the third and second olitical theories. concei'ed as an eschatological 'ersion o)traditionalis*. once tried to ?saddle *odernity@ in their struggle ,ith li!eralis*. the )irst olitical theory. today there is a chance o) acco*lishing so*ething analogous ,ith ost*odernity. using these ?ne, holes@. in articular$ Li!eralis* de'eloed )la,less ,eaons ai*ed at achie'ing its straight)or,ardalternati'es. ,hich ,as the !asis )or its 'ictory$ ut it is this 'ery 'ictory that holds the



greatest ris" to li!eralis*$ 6e need only to ascertain the location o) these ne,. 'ulnera!lesots in the glo!al syste* and deciher its login ass,ords in order to hac" into its syste*$At the 'ery least. ,e *ust try to do so$ The e'ents o) 11 Sete*!er 2001 in (e, or"de*onstrated that this is technologically ossi!le$ The nternet society can !e use)ul. e'en)or those ,ho staunchly oose it$ n any case. )irst and )ore*ost. ,e *ust understand

ost*odernity and our ne, situation no less ro)oundly than #arx understood the structureo) industrial caitalis*$ The Fourth Political Theory *ust dra, its ?dar" insiration@ )ro* ost*odernity.)ro* the li9uidation o) the rogra* o) the Enlighten*ent. and the arri'al o) the society o)the si*ulacra. interreting this as an incenti'e )or !attle rather than as a destiny$

&ethin4in) the Past an! Those %ho ost

The second and third olitical theories are unacceta!le as starting oints )orresisting li!eralis*. articularly !ecause o) the ,ay in ,hich they understood the*sel'es.,hat they aealed to. and ho, they oerated$ They ositioned the*sel'es as contenders)or the exression o) the soul o) *odernity and )ailed in that endea'our$ et. nothing stosus )ro* rethin"ing the 'ery )act o) their )ailure as so*ething ositi'e. and recasting their'ices as 'irtues$ Since the logic o) the history o) the (e, Era !rought us to ost*odernity.then it also contained the secret essence o) the (e, Era ,hich ,as only re'ealed to us inthe end$ The second and third olitical theories recognised the*sel'es as contenders )or theexression o) *odernity@s sirit$ And these clai*s ca*e crashing do,n$ E'erything relatedto these un)ul)illed intentions in the re'ious ideologies is uninteresting )or the creators o)the Fourth Political Theory$ 5o,e'er. ,e should attri!ute the 'ery )act that they lost to oneo) their ad'antages rather than their disad'antages$ y losing. they ro'ed that they did not !elong to the sirit o) *odernity. ,hich. in turn. led to the ostli!eral *atrix$ 5erein lietheir ad'antages$ #oreo'er. this *eans that the reresentati'es o) the second and third olitical theories. either consciously or unconsciously. stood on the side o) Tradition.although ,ithout dra,ing the necessary conclusions )ro* this. or e'en not recognising it atall$ The second and third olitical theories *ust !e reconsidered. selecting in the* that,hich *ust !e discarded and that ,hich has 'alue in itsel)$ As co*lete ideologies. tryingto *ani)est the*sel'es in a literal sense. they are entirely useless. either theoretically or ractically$ 5o,e'er. certain *arginal ele*ents ,hich ad'ocated ideas that ,ere generallynot i*le*ented. and ,hich re*ained on the erihery or in the shado,s +let us recall the?*etahysics o) de!ris@ once again-. *ay. unexectedly. turn out to !e extre*ely 'alua!leand saturated ,ith *eaning and intuition$ et. in any case. it is necessary to rethin" the second and third olitical theories in ane, ,ay. and only a)ter ,e reect our trust in those ideological structures on ,hich their?orthodoxy@ rested$ Their orthodoxy is their *ost uninteresting and ,orthless asect$ %rossBreading the* ,ould !e )ar *ore roducti'e ?#arx through a ositi'e 'ie, o) the Right@ or?E'olaJ2: through a ositi'e 'ie, o) the Le)t@$ This )ascinating ?(ational olshe'i"@J2;underta"ing. in the sirit o) (i"olai G$ /strialo'J2= or Ernst (ie"isch.J2> is not su))icient !y itsel)$ A)ter all. a *echanical addition o) the second olitical theory to the third ,ill not.



!y itsel). lead us any,here$ Only in retrosect can ,e delineate their co**onalities. ,hich,ere staunchly oosed to li!eralis*$ This *ethodological exercise is use)ul as a ,ar*Bu !e)ore co**encing a )ullB)ledged ela!oration o) the Fourth Political Theory$ A truly signi)icant and decisi'e reading o) the second and third olitical theories isonly ossi!le on the !asis o) an already esta!lished Fourth Political Theory$ Post*odernity

and its conditions +the glo!alist ,orld. gouvernance[2&] or ?*icro*anage*ent@. the *ar"etsociety. the uni'ersalis* o) hu*an rights. ?the real do*ination o) caital@. and so on-reresent the *ain o!ect o) the Fourth Political Theory$ 5o,e'er. they are radicallynegated as 'alues in the*sel'es$

The &eturn of Tra!ition an! Theolo)y

Tradition +religion. hierarchy. and )a*ily- and its 'alues ,ere o'erthro,n at theda,n o) *odernity$ Actually. all three olitical theories ,ere concei'ed as arti)icialideological constructions !y eole ,ho co*rehended. in 'arious ,ays. ?the death o)<od@ +Friedrich (ietHsche-. the ?disenchant*ent o) the ,orld@ +#ax 6e!er-.J2C and the?end o) the sacred@$ This ,as the core o) the (e, Era o) *odernity *an ca*e to relace<od. hilosohy and science relaced religion. and the rational. )orce)ul. and technologicalconstructs too" the lace o) re'elation$ 5o,e'er. i) *odernis* is exhausted in ost*odernity. then at the sa*e ti*e. the eriod o) direct ?theo*achy@J80 co*es to an end along ,ith it$ Post*odern eole are notini*ical to,ards religion. !ut rather. indi))erent$ #oreo'er. certain asects o) religion. as arule. such as Satanis*. and the ?de*onic texture@ o) ost*odernist hilosohers are 9uiteaealing to *any ost*odern indi'iduals$ n any case. the era o) ersecuting Tradition iso'er. although. )ollo,ing the logic o) ostli!eralis*. this ,ill li"ely lead to the creation o) ane, glo!al seudoBreligion. !ased on scras o) disarate syncretic cults. ra*ant chaoticecu*enis*. and ?tolerance@$J81 6hile this turn o) e'ents is. in so*e ,ays. e'en *oreterri)ying than direct and unco*licated dog*atic atheis* and *aterialis*. the decrease inthe ersecution o) )aith *ay o))er an oortunity. i) the reresentati'es o) the FourthPolitical Theory act consistently and unco*ro*isingly in de)ending the ideals and the'alues o) Tradition$J82

t is no, sa)e to institute a olitical rogra* that ,as once outla,ed !y *odernity$t no longer aears as )oolish and doo*ed )or )ailure as !e)ore. !ecause e'erything in ost*odernity loo"s )oolish and doo*ed )or )ailure. including its *ost ?gla*orous@ asects$t is not !y chance that the heroes o) ost*odernity are ?)rea"s@ and?*onsters@ .@trans'estites@ and ?degenerates@ I this is the la, o) style$ Against the !ac"droo) the ,orld@s clo,ns. nothing and no one could loo" ?too archaic@. not e'en the eole o)Tradition ,ho ignore the i*erati'es o) *odern li)e$ The )airness o) this assertion is notonly ro'en !y the signi)icant achie'e*ents o) sla*ic )unda*entalis*. !ut also !y thegro,ing in)luence o) extre*ely archaic Protestant sects +Disensationalists.J88 #or*ons.and so on- on A*erican )oreign olicy$ <eorge 6$ ush ,ent to ,ar in ra9 !ecause. in hiso,n ,ords. ?<od told *e to in'ade ra9@J8: This is 9uite in "eeing ,ith his Protestant#ethodist teachers$ Thus. the Fourth Political Theory *ay easily turn to,ard e'erything that receded



*odernity in order to dra, its insiration$ The ac"no,ledge*ent o) ?<od@s death@ ceases to !e the *andatory i*erati'e )or those ,ho ,ant to stay rele'ant$ The eole o) ost*odernity are already so resigned to this e'ent that they can no longer understand it I?6ho died exactly7@ ut. in the sa*e ,ay. the de'eloers o) the Fourth Political Theory can)orget a!out this ?e'ent@ ?6e !elie'e in <od. !ut ignore those ,ho tal" a!out 5is death.

*uch li"e ,e ignore the ,ords o) *ad*en@$ This *ar"s the return o) theology. and !eco*es an essential ele*ent o) the FourthPolitical Theory$ 6hen it returns. ost*odernity +glo!alisation. ostli!eralis*. and the ostBindustrial societyis easily recogniHed as ?the "ingdo* o) the Antichrist@ +or itscounterarts in other religions I ?Daal@ )or #usli*s. ?Ere' Ra'@ )or the 3e,s. and ?Kaliuga@ )or 5indus. and so )orth-$ This is not si*ly a *etahor caa!le o) *o!ilising the*asses. !ut a religious )act I the )act o) the Aocalyse$

yths an! Archaism in the Fourth Political Theory

) atheis*. in the (e, Era. ceases to !e so*ething *andatory )or the FourthPolitical Theory. then the theology o) *onotheistic religions. ,hich at one ti*e dislacedother sacred cultures. ,ill not !e the ulti*ate truth. either +or rather. *ay or *ay not !e-$Theoretically. nothing li*its the ossi!ilities )or an inBdeth readdressing o) the ancientarchaic 'alues. ,hich can ta"e their lace in the ne, ideological construction uon !eingade9uately recognised and understood$ Eli*inating the need to adust theology to therationalis* o) *odernity. the adherents o) the Fourth Political Theory are )ree to ignorethose theological and dog*atic ele*ents in *onotheistic societies ,hich ,ere in)luenced !y rationalis*. esecially in their later stages$ The latter led to the aearance o) deis*uon the ruins o) %hristian Euroean culture.J8; )ollo,ed !y atheis* and *aterialis*.during the hased de'elo*ent o) the rogra* o) the *odern age$

(ot only the highest suraB*ental sy*!ols o) )aith can !e ta"en on !oard onceagain as a ne, shield. !ut so can those irrational asects o) cults. rites. and legends thatha'e erlexed theologians in earlier ages$ ) ,e reect the idea o) rogress that is inherentin *odernity +,hich as ,e ha'e seen. has ended-. then all that is ancient gains 'alue andcredi!ility )or us si*ly !y 'irtue o) the )act that it is ancient$ ?Ancient@ *eans good. andthe *ore ancient I the !etter$ O) all creations. Paradise is the *ost ancient one$ The carriers o) the Fourth PoliticalTheory *ust stri'e to,ard redisco'ering it in the near )uture$

ei!e))er an! the 2ent rei)nis

Finally. ,e can identi)y the *ost ro)ound I ontological I )oundation )or theFourth Political Theory$ 5ere. ,e should ay attention not only to theologies and*ythologies. !ut also to the re)lecti'e hilosohical exerience o) one articular thin"er,ho had *ade a uni9ue atte*t o) constructing a )unda*ental ontology I the *ost allBenco*assing. aradoxical. ro)ound. and enetrating study o) eing$ a* tal"ing a!out#artin 5eidegger$



A !rie) descrition o) 5eidegger@s concet is as )ollo,s at the da,n o) hilosohical thought. eole +*ore seci)ically. Euroeans. and e'en *ore seci)ically.the <ree"s-. raised the 9uestion o) eing as the )ocal oint o) their thin"ing$ ut. !y*a"ing it their ri*ary su!ect. they ris"ed getting con)used !y the nuances o) theco*licated relationshi !et,een eing and thought. !et,een ure eing +'eyn- and its

exression in existence I a !eing +'eiende-. !et,een the hu*an exerience o) !eingBinBtheB,orld + (asein I !eingBthere- and !eingBinBitsel) +'ein-$ This )ailure had alreadyoccurred in the teachings o) 5eraclitusJ8= a!out the phusis[)*] and the logos$J8 (ext. itis o!'ious that in Par*enides@J8C ,or". and. )inally. in Plato. ,ho laced ideas !et,een*an and existence. and ,ho de)ined truth as that ,hich corresonded to the* I there)erential theory o) "no,ledge I reached its cul*ination in )ailure$ This ga'e !irth toalienation. e'entually leading to ?calculating thin"ing@ +das rechnende (enken- and then tothe de'elo*ent o) technology$ Little !y little. *an lost sight o) ure eing and ursued the ath o) nihilis*$ The essence o) technology +!ased on the relationshi !et,een technologyand the ,orld- exresses this e'erBincreasing nihilis*$ n the (e, Era. this tendencyreaches its innacle I technical de'elo*ent ++e,stell -J:0 ulti*ately dislaces eing andcro,ns ?nothingness@$ 5eidegger !itterly hated li!eralis*. considering it an exression o)?the source o) the calculati'e thin"ing@ ,hich lies at the heart o) ?6estern nihilis*@$ Post*odernity. ,hich 5eidegger did not li'e to see in its )ull *ani)estation. is. ine'ery sense. the ulti*ate o!li'ion o) eing it is that ?*idnight@. ,hen nothingness+nihilis*- !egins to see )ro* all the crac"s$J:1 et his hilosohy ,as not hoelessly essi*istic$ 5e !elie'ed that nothingness itsel) is the )li side o) ure eing. ,hich I insuch a aradoxical ,ay I re*inds *an"ind o) its existence$ ) ,e correctly deciher thelogic !ehind the un)urling o) eing. then thin"ing *an"ind can sa'e itsel) ,ith lightningseed at the 'ery *o*ent o) its greatest ris"$ ?ut ,here the danger lies. there also gro,sthat ,hich sa'es@. 5eidegger 9uotes )ro* Friedrich 5lderlin@s oetry$J:2

5eidegger used a secial ter*. -reignis I the ?e'ent@. to descri!e this suddenreturn o) eing$ t ta"es lace exactly at *idnight o) the ,orld@s night I at the dar"est*o*ent in history$ 5eidegger hi*sel) constantly 'acillated as to ,hether this oint had !een reached. or ?not 9uite yet@$ The eternal ?not yet@ 5eidegger@s hilosohy *ay ro'e to !e the central axis threading e'erythingaround itsel) I ranging )ro* the reconcei'ed second and third olitical theories to thereturn o) theology and *ythology$

Thus. at the heart o) the Fourth Political Theory. as its *agnetic centre. lies thetraectory o) the aroaching -reignis +the ?E'ent@-. ,hich ,ill e*!ody the triu*hantreturn o) eing. at the exact *o*ent ,hen *an"ind )orgets a!out it. once and )or all. to the oint that the last traces o) it disaear$

The Fourth Political Theory an! &ussia



Today. *any eole intuiti'ely understand that Russia has no lace in the ?!ra'ene, ,orld@ o) glo!alisation. ost*odernity. and ostli!eralis*$ First. the ,orld state andthe ,orld go'ern*ent are gradually a!olishing all nationBstates in general$ E'en *orei*ortant is the )act that the entirety o) Russian history is a dialectical argu*ent ,ith the6est and against 6estern culture. the struggle )or uholding our o,n +o)ten only intuiti'ely

grased- ussian truth. our o,n *essianic idea. and our o,n 'ersion o) the ?end o)history@. no *atter ho, it is exressed I through #usco'ite Orthodoxy. Peter@s seculare*ire. or the glo!al %o**unist re'olution$ The !rightest Russian *inds clearly sa, thatthe 6est ,as *o'ing to,ards the a!yss$ (o,. loo"ing at ,here neoli!eral econo*ics and ost*odern culture has led the ,orld. ,e can !e certain that this intuition. ushinggenerations o) Russian eole to search )or alternati'es. ,as co*letely usti)ied$ The current glo!al econo*ic crisis is ust the !eginning$ The ,orst is yet to co*e$The inertia o) ostli!eral olitics is such that a change o) course is i*ossi!le to sa'e the6est. unrestrained ?e*anciated technology@ +Os,ald Sengler-J:8 ,ill search )or *oree))icient. !ut a urely technical. technological *eans$ This is the ne, hase in the onset o) +e,stell" sreading the nihilistic stain o) the glo!al *ar"et o'er the entire lanet$ #o'ing)ro* crisis to crisis and )ro* one !u!!le to the next. the glo!alist econo*y and thestructures o) ostBindustrial society only *a"e *an"ind@s night !lac"er and !lac"er$ t is so !lac". in )act. that ,e gradually )orget that it is nightBti*e$ ?6hat is light7@ eole as"the*sel'es. ne'er ha'ing seen it$ For exa*le. at the ti*e o) the erution o) the 200)inancial crisis. thousands o) A*ericans held a de*onstration. as"ing )or the go'ern*ent)or yet another econo*ic !u!!le$ %ould they !e any *ore !lunt7 t is clear that Russia needs to )ollo, a di))erent ath. its o,n$ et herein lies the9uestion and the aradox$ E'ading the logic o) ost*odernity in only one country ,ill not !e that si*le$ The So'iet *odel tried. and collased$ A)ter that oint. the ideologicalsituation changed irre'ersi!ly. as did the strategic !alance o) o,er$ n order )or Russia tosa'e hersel) and others. creating so*e sort o) a technological *iracle or a deceti'estrategy is insu))icient$ 6orld history has its o,n logic$ And the ?end o) ideology@ is not arando* )ailure. !ut the !eginning o) a ne, stage I and aarently. the last one$ n this situation. Russia@s )uture co*letely relies on our e))orts to de'elo theFourth Political Theory$ 6e ,ill not go )ar. and ,ill only delay the ine'ita!le. !yatte*ting to sort those otions that glo!aliHation o))ers to us on a local !asis. and !y tryingto correct the status 9uo in a suer)icial *anner$ Post*odernity@s challenge is tre*endouslysigni)icant it is rooted in the logic o) eing@s o!li'ion and in *an"ind@s dearture )ro* itsexistential +ontological- and siritual +theological- roots$ Resonding to it ,ith hatBtossinginno'ation or u!licBrelations surrogates is i*ossi!le$ There)ore. ,e *ust re)er to the hilosohical )oundations o) history and *a"e a *etahysical e))ort in order to sol'e thecurrent ro!le*s I the glo!al econo*ic crisis. countering the uniolar ,orld. as ,ell asthe reser'ation and strengthening o) so'ereignty. and so on$

t is di))icult to say ho, the rocess o) de'eloing this theory ,ill turn out$ Onething is clear it cannot !e an indi'idual e))ort or one that is restricted to a s*all grou o) eole$ The e))ort *ust !e shared. and collecti'e$ n this *atter. the reresentati'es o) other cultures and eoles. !oth in Euroe and Asia. can truly hel us. since they sense theeschatological tension o) the resent *o*ent ust as acutely. and are loo"ing )or the ,ayout o) the glo!al deadBend ust as deserately$ 5o,e'er. it is ossi!le to state in ad'ance that the Russian 'ersion o) the FourthPolitical Theory. !ased on the reection o) the status 9uo in its ractical and theoretical



di*ensions. ,ill )ocus on the ?Russian -reignis@$ This ,ill !e that 'ery ?E'ent@. uni9ue andextraordinary. )or ,hich *any generations o) Russian eole ha'e li'ed and ,aited. )ro*the !irth o) our nation to the co*ing arri'al o) the End o) Days$



: (asein as an Actor

#ta)es an! Problems in the (e2elo.ment of the Fourth Political Theory

+eing a suorter o) cyclical de'elo*ent. and an oonent o) Francis acon andhis theory o) "no,ledge.J:: ,ould still li"e to suggest that ,e de'elo and *odi)yaroaches to seci)ic toics and areas o) thought in an ongoing *anner$ 6e ha'ereeatedly clari)ied the notion o) ?conser'atis*@$ 6e conducted a series o) con)erences andscienti)ic sy*osia on the Fourth Political Theory$ Let us !elie'e that these e))orts. theresults o) ,hich ha'e !een u!lished in *agaHines.J:; anthologies. *onograhs. and6e!sites.J:= ,ere not carried out in 'ain. and that the reader is *ore or less )a*iliar ,iththe*$ There)ore. roose to *o'e on$ ,ill de*onstrate. ,ith concrete exa*les. ,hat has !een done to ro*ote thediscussion o) the Fourth Political Theory and. conse9uently. the o!ser'a!le results o) theacti'ities conducted !y the %entre o) %onser'ati'e Research at the Faculty o) Sociology o)#osco, State /ni'ersity and the St$ Peters!urg %onser'ati'e %lu! at the Faculty o)Philosohy o) St$ Peters!urg State /ni'ersity$ This includes t,o !oo"s that ,ere recently u!lished in St$ Peters!urg. !y the ,onder)ul St$ Peters!urg u!lishing house A*horaAlain de enoist@s Against i!eralism/ To$ards the Fourth Political Theory and *y o,nThe Fourth Political Theory$J:> The !oo" !y the hilosoher Alain de enoist. ,ho so"eat St$ Peters!urg State /ni'ersity during the ?Philosohy Days@ there. is a co*endiu* o)his 'ie,s on hilosohy and olitical science ertaining to the *aor issues o) our ti*eglo!alisation. the econo*ic and social crisis. the rocess o) Euroean integration. ne, olitical and social trends. the relationshi !et,een Euroe and Russia. hu*anis*. and so)orth$ All these ro!le*s are addressed )ro* a critical standoint to,ard the li!eralideology ,hich do*inates the ,orld +the )irst. and the *ost sta!le. olitical theory-$Lac"ing co*etition a)ter the collase o) %o**unis*. it has !eco*e the ri*ary target )or criticis* !y those ,ho are acutely a,are o) the negati'e i*act o) the status 9uo in olitics.the social shere. econo*ics. culture. ideology. and so on. and ,ho are searching )or analternati'e$ The old alternati'es to li!eralis* I %o**unis* and )ascis* I ,ereo'erco*e !y history and discarded. each in its o,n ,ay. and ha'e de*onstrated theirine))ecti'eness and inco*etence$ There)ore. the search )or an alternati'e to li!eralis**ust loo" so*e,here else$ The area to !e searched is designated as the do*ain o) theFourth Political Theory$ Such an aroach corresonds exactly to the stated the*e?%onser'atis* The Future or an Alternati'e7@ ) ,e thin" a!out an alternati'e and correlateit ,ith the existing !luerint )or the )uture. then ,e should clearly understand ,hat thatalternati'e is going to relace$ The ans,er is si*le li!eralis* as the do*inant glo!aldiscourse$ There)ore. the only signi)icant alternati'e should logically !e directed againstli!eralis*. hence the title o) Alain de enoist@s !oo"$ (e'ertheless. the 9uestion re*ains



does conser'atis* )it this role7 n art. ,e heard the ans,er in enoist@s seech. in ,hichhe criticised the li!eral theory o) rogress$ This hilosohical aroach rooses thatconser'atis* is the *ost logical candidate )or an alternati'e to li!eralis*. either as arelati'ising ,orld'ie, or as one ,hich reects rogress altogether$ 6hat re*ains. then. is toseci)y the "ind o) conser'atis* in 9uestion it is o!'ious that li!eral conser'atis*J:

cannot !e considered an alternati'e to li!eralis*. !eing its 'ariant$ Thus. !y the rocess o)eli*ination. ,e can *a"e a roosition ,e *ust loo" )or an alternati'e to li!eralis* innonBli!eral 'ersions o) conser'atis*$ All this is logical. since enoist hi*sel) is "no,n as a hilosoher ,ith conser'ati'e 'ie,s +he is so*eti*es re)erred to as one o) the ioneers o)the Euroean ?(e, Right@-. !ut the articular "ind o) conser'atis* he has in *ind iso!'ious )ro* his ne,ly u!lished !oo"$ There is another asect ,orth *entioning in regard to the title o) enoist@s !oo"$#any readers ,ill re*e*!er another ideological *ani)esto directed against li!eralis*called A%ter i!eralism !y **anuel 6allerstein$J:C Desite the si*ilarity in their titlesand the o!ect o) criticis*. there is a signi)icant di))erence$ 6allerstein criticises li!eralis*)ro* the oint o) 'ie, o) the Le)t I )ro* the neoB#arxist osition$ And. li"e any #arxist.he sees li!eralis* +!ourgeois de*ocracy and caitalis*- as a hase o) historicalde'elo*ent. ,hich is rogressi'e in co*arison ,ith the receding hases o)de'elo*ent +such as )eudalis* or sla'ery-. !ut is in)erior to ,hat *ust co*e a)ter it Isocialis*. %o**unis*. and so )orth$ 6e are tal"ing a!out criticis* ?)ro* the Le)t@ and. inso*e ,ays. )ro* the standoint o) the )uture +,hich is exressed in 6allerstein@s !oo" title I A%ter i!eralism-$ This is a tyical )eature o) #arxis*$ For enoist. neither thesueriority o) li!eralis* o'er earlier tyes o) societies. nor the ad'antages o) a %o**unist)uture. are o!'ious$ There)ore. desite the si*ilarity o) titles. there is a )unda*entaldi))erence !et,een the authors@ initial ositions ,ith 6allerstein. ,e are dealing ,ithcriticis* ?)ro* the Le)t@ ,ith enoist. ,ith criticis* ?)ro* the Right@$ Another di))erencein'ol'es the relationshi to li!eralis*$ According to 6allerstein. the end o) li!eralis* is a)oregone conclusion according to the 'ery logic o) socioolitical and socioecono*ichistory. and so he easily so"e o) an ?a)ter@$ For enoist. the 9uestion re*ains one *ust)ight against li!eralis*. yet in this *orally and historically usti)ied struggle. there are noguaranteed results$ t is i*ortant to )ight against li!eralis* here and no, it is i*ortant toidenti)y its 'ulnera!ilities it is i*ortant to )orge an alternati'e ,orld'ie, I !ut the)uture is in our hands. and it is oen rather than redeter*ined$ 6allerstein. in 'aryingdegrees. 'ie,s things *echanically. li"e any #arxist. ,hereas enoist is an organicist andholist. li"e any +real- conser'ati'e$ The last ite* that ,ould li"e to oint out in regard to the ideas o) Alain de enoistand their rele'ance is his understanding o) %arl Sch*itt@s concet o) the ?Fourth 0omos o)the Earth@J;0 I that is. the relationshi !et,een olitical science and ?olitical theology@,ith geoolitics and the ne, *odel o) the olitical organisation o) sace$ For *y art. in the !oo" Fourth Political Theory.J;1 re'ie,ed the three ri*ary olitical theories o) the ast I li!eralis*. #arxis* +socialis*- and )ascis* +including (ational Socialis*-. su**ed u their o'erall !alance. and atte*ted to identi)y thehoriHons )or the de'elo*ent o) the Fourth Political Theory !eyond all three ideologies$This. o) course. is extre*ely )ar )ro* any dog*atis* or roosal )or a co*lete ans,er tothe stated ro!le*$ (e'ertheless. these are rather seci)ic stes to,ard the rearation )ortac"ling this issue$ 6ithout reeating ,hat ,as said in *y !oo" and the !oo" !y Alain deenoist. ,ill try to *a"e a nu*!er o) re*ar"s a!out the de'elo*ent o) this su!ect$



6hat the Fourth Political Theory is. in ter*s o) ,hat it ooses. is no, clear$ t isneither )ascis*. nor %o**unis*. nor li!eralis*$ n rincile. this "ind o) negation is rather signi)icant$ t e*!odies our deter*ination to go !eyond the usual ideological and olitical aradig*s and to *a"e an e))ort to o'erco*e the inertia o) the clichNs ,ithin oliticalthin"ing$ This alone is a highly sti*ulating in'itation )or a )ree sirit and a critical *ind$

do not really understand ,hy certain eole. ,hen con)ronted ,ith the concet o) theFourth Political Theory. do not i**ediately rush to oen a !ottle o) cha*agne. and do notstart dancing and reoicing. cele!rating the disco'ery o) ne, ossi!ilities$ A)ter all. this is a"ind o) a hilosohical (e, ear I an exciting lea into the un"no,n$ The ?Old ear@,itnessed the struggle o) the three olitical ideologies I one o) ,hich ,as so !loody that itclai*ed *illions o) li'es$ All the criticis* o) li!eralis* ,as either )ascist or %o**unist$These critical aroaches ha'e !een le)t !ehind. !ut the oldest o) these ideologies Ili!eralis* I is still here$ Li!eralis* is the re*nant o) the ?Old ear@ it is residuo.J;2 anuncertain ast that ,as not roerly sent to o!li'ion$ t has already assed. !ut does not,ant to lea'e er*anently in any ,ay$ n short. it is a chi*era. ?the dragon that s,allo,edthe [email protected];8 or ?the e'il sirits that "idnaed the Sno, #aiden@ !e)ore the (e, ear$J;:n a sense. li!eralis* e*!odies e'erything that ,as in the ast$ The Fourth Political Theoryis the na*e )or a !rea"through and a ne, !eginning$ /nderscoring the rele'ance o) this criticis*. and esecially highlighting the )act thatthis is a radical reection o) all three olitical theories +li!eralis*. %o**unis*. and)ascis*- and their 'ariants. suggest ,e *editate on the ositi'e asects o) the FourthPolitical Theory$ The )act that ,e ha'e identi)ied ,hat ,e oose is. in itsel). a signi)icantachie'e*ent. and re9uires a thorough understanding$ The 'ery idea o) utting an end to)ascis*. %o**unis*. and li!eralis* is an extre*ely li!erating thing$ The Fourth PoliticalTheory roclai*s. ?Say noU to )ascis*. noU to %o**unis*. and noU to li!eralis*@?Li!eralis* ,ill not ,or"@ t ?,ill not ass@ +10o pasarn3-.J;; *uch li"e )ascis* once)ailed +no ha pasado-$J;= The erlin 6all. too. collased only dust re*ains )ro* the only'isi!le !arrier ut u !y %o**unists to searate the*sel'es )ro* the li!eral caitalists$The %o**unists ?did not ass@. either$ 6hat re*ains is not )or li!erals to ass I and they,ill not ass ut in order )or the* not to ass. the )rag*ents o) the erlin 6all areinsu))icient )or us. as the 6all itsel) ,as insu))icient$ The 6all existed. !ut they still assed$E'en less hel)ul are the dar" shado,s o) the Third Reich. its nealehnye.J;> insiringonly the !rutal un" youth and the er'erted drea*s o) sado*asochists$ %onse9uently. ,e suggest *o'ing !eyond the nihilistic hase o) the Fourth PoliticalTheory to,ard so*ething constructi'e$ Once the three olitical theories as a syste*atised,hole ha'e !een discarded. ,e can try to loo" at the* )ro* a di))erent ersecti'e$ Theyare !eing reected recisely as co*lete ideological syste*s. each on the !asis o) searateargu*ents$ Li"e any syste*. they consist o) ele*ents that do not !elong to the*$ The three olitical ideologies o,n their uni9ue hilosohical syste*s. grous. exlanatory*ethodologies. and reresent a ,hole ,hich is a structure deri'ed )ro* their ?her*eneuticcircle@ and their )unda*ental !elie)s$ They are ,hat they are as a $hole$ Dis*e*!ered intoco*onents. they lose their signi)icance and !eco*e *eaningless$ Li!eralis*. #arxis*+socialist or %o**unist-. and )ascis* +including (ational Socialis*- are not co*onentso) o'erarching li!eral. #arxist. or )ascist ideologies$ t is not that they are co*letelyneutral. !ut outside o) their strict ideological context. one can )ind or disco'er a di))erent.or ne,. *eaning )or the*$ The ositi'e asects o) the de'elo*ent o) the Fourth PoliticalTheory are !ased on this rincile$ A re'ision o) the three olitical ideologies. and an



analysis o) each in uncon'entional ,ays. can gi'e certain clues to the su!stanti'e content o) our o,n theory$ n each o) the three ideologies there is a clearly de)ined historical su!ect$

n li!eral ideology. the historical su!ect is the indi'idual$ The indi'idual isconcei'ed as a unit that is rational and endo,ed ,ith a ,ill +*orality-$ The indi'idual is

!oth a gi'en and the goal o) li!eralis*$ t is a gi'en. !ut one that is o)ten una,are o) itsidentity as an indi'idual$ All )or*s o) collecti'e identity I ethnic. national. religious.caste. and so on I i*ede an indi'idual@s a,areness o) his indi'iduality$ Li!eralis*encourages the indi'idual to !eco*e hi*sel). that is. to !e )ree o) all those social identitiesand deendencies that constrain and de)ine the indi'idual )ro* outside$ This is the *eaningo) li!eralis* +in English. li!erty in Latin. li!ertas- the call to !eco*e ?li!erated@ +Latinli!er - )ro* all things external to onesel)$ #oreo'er. li!eral theorists +in articular. 3ohnStuart #ill-J; underscored the )act that ,e are tal"ing a!out a ?)reedo* %[email protected];C a!outthe release )ro* ties. identi)ications. and restrictions that are an i*osition uon theindi'idual@s ,ill$ As )or ,hat the urose o) this )reedo* is. li!erals re*ain silent$ To assertso*e "ind o) a nor*ati'e goal is. in their eyes. to restrict the indi'idual and his )reedo*$There)ore. they strictly searate a ?)reedo* %rom@. ,hich they regard as a *oral i*erati'eo) social de'elo*ent. )ro* the ?)reedo* %or @ I the nor*ati'isation o) ho,. ,hy. and )or,hat urose this )reedo* should !e used$ The latter re*ains at the discretion o) thehistorical su!ect I in other ,ords. the indi'idual$ The historical su!ect o) the second olitical theory is class$ The class structure o)society and the con)lict !et,een the exloiter and the exloited classes are the core o) the%o**unists@ dra*atic 'ision o) history$ 5istory is class struggle$ Politics is its exression$The roletariat is a dialectic historical su!ect. ,hich is called to set itsel) )ree )ro* thedo*ination o) the !ourgeoisie and to !uild a society on ne, )oundations$ A singleindi'idual is concei'ed here as a art o) a classB!ased ,hole. and ac9uires social existenceonly in the rocess o) raising class consciousness$ And. )inally. the su!ect o) the third olitical theory is either the State +as in talianFascis*- or race +as in <er*an (ational Socialis*-$ n )ascis*. e'erything is !ased uon aRightB,ing 'ersion o) 5egelianis*. since 5egel hi*sel) considered the Prussian state to !ethe ea" o) historical de'elo*ent in ,hich the su!ecti'e sirit ,as er)ected$ <io'anni<entile.J=0 a roonent o) 5egelianis*. alied this concet to Fascist taly$J=1 n<er*an (ational Socialis*. the historical su!ect is the ?Aryan [email protected]=2 ,hich. accordingto racists. ?carries out the eternal struggle against the su!hu*an races@$ The aallingconse9uences o) this ideology are too ,ell "no,n to d,ell uon the*$ 5o,e'er. it ,as thisoriginal de)inition o) a historical su!ect that ,as at the heart o) the (aHis@ cri*inal ractices$ The de)inition o) a historical su!ect is the )unda*ental !asis )or olitical ideologyin general. and de)ines its structure$ There)ore. in this *atter. the Fourth Political Theory*ay act in the *ost radical ,ay !y reecting all o) these constructions as candidates )or ahistorical su!ect$ The historical su!ect is neither an indi'idual. nor class. nor the state. nor race$ This is the anthroological and the historical axio* o) the Fourth Political Theory$ 6e assu*ed that it is clear to us ,ho. or ,hat. cannot !e the historical su!ect$ utthen ,ho. or ,hat. can7

6e cleared a sace and correctly osed the 9uestion$ 6e seci)ied the ro!le* o)clari)ying the historical su!ect in the Fourth Political Theory$ (o, there is a gaing 'oid.,hich is extre*ely interesting and signi)icant$



5eading into the deths o) this 'oid. ,e roose )our hyotheses. ,hich are not*utually exclusi'e. and ,hich can !e exa*ined !oth collecti'ely and indi'idually$ The )irst hyothesis suggests a!andoning all tyes o) contenders )or the role o) ahistorical su!ect )ro* classical olitical theory. assu*ing that the su!ect o) the FourthPolitical Theory is so*e tye o) co*ound I not the indi'idual. class. state. race. or

nation on their o,n. !ut instead. a certain co*!ination thereo)$ This is the hyothesis o) aco*ound su!ect$ The second hyothesis is to aroach the ro!le* )ro* the standoint o) heno*enology$ Let us lace all that ,e "no, a!out the historical su!ect outside the)ra*e,or" o) classical ideologies. carry out the 5usserlianJ=8 *ethod o) epoch5.J=: andtry to e*irically de)ine that ?li)e,orld@J=; ,hich ,ill oen u !e)ore us I the li)e,orldo) the olitical. one )ree )ro* *etahysics or theology$J== s it ossi!le to consider olitical history ,ithout a su!ect7 5istory as such7 A)ter all. theoretically. there ,erehistorical eriods ,hen olitics existed. !ut ,hen there ,as no su!ect in the hilosohical.%artesian sense$ O) course. in hindsight. e'en this ?reBsu!ect@ in olitical history ,asreinterreted in accordance ,ith 'arious ideologies$ ut. i) ,e no longer trust ideologies.such as the three olitical theories. then their historic reconstruction is not an axio* )or us$) ,e consider olitical history in the style o) the ?Annales school@ +Fernand raudel@s*ethod-.J=> then ,e ha'e the chance to disco'er a rather olyhonic icture. exandingour understanding o) the su!ect$ n the sirit o) Peter erger.J= ,e can oen u the rosect o) ?desecularisation@ +throughout history. religious organisations )re9uently act as olitical su!ects- or. together ,ith %arl Sch*itt.J=C ,e can rethin" the in)luence o)Tradition on a olitical decision +in the sirit o) Sch*itt@s doctrine o) ?decisionis*@-$J>0Discarding the dog*a o) rogress ,ill re'eal a ,ide range o) olitical actors. oerating uuntil and !eyond the (e, Age. ,hich )its into the conser'ati'e aroach$ ut ,e are )ree tocontinue our oen search )or ,hat *ay relace the historical su!ect in the )uture I erhas in the exotic hyotheses o) DeleuHe and <uattari a!out the rhiHo*e.J>1 a ?!ody,ithout organs@. ?*icroolitics@. and so on. or on the horiHon o) rotoBhistory ,ithaudrillard and DerridaJ>2 +text. deconstruction. di%%5rance.J>8 etc$-$ They o))er us ne, I and this ti*e. not entirely conser'ati'e I caa!ilities$ There)ore. it is not ,orth,hile toreect the* in ad'ance. si*ly on the !asis o) their authors@ sy*athies to,ard #arxis*and their Le)tist a))iliation$ The third hyothesis is a!out )orcing the heno*enological *ethod and rushingse'eral stes ahead ,e *ay roose to consider 5eidegger@s (asein[*4] as the su!ect o)the Fourth Political Theory$ (asein is descri!ed in 5eidegger@s hilosohy at lengththrough its existential structure. ,hich *a"es it ossi!le to !uild a co*lex. holistic *odel !ased on it. the de'elo*ent o) ,hich ,ill lead to. )or instance. a ne, understanding o) olitics$ #any researchers ha'e lost sight o) the )act that 5eidegger. esecially. in his*iddle eriod !et,een 1C8= and 1C:;. de'eloed a co*lete history o) hilosohy centredaround (asein" ,hich. it has !eco*e aarent in retrosect. can )or* the !asis o) a )ullB)ledged and ,ellBde'eloed olitical hilosohy$ Thus. acceting the (asein hyothesis i**ediately gi'es us a !road *a in order tona'igate the construction o) history necessary )or olitical theory$ ) the su!ect is (asein.then the Fourth Political Theory ,ould constitute a )unda*ental ontological structure that isde'eloed on the !asis o) existential anthroology$ 6e can *a out the direction todescri!e this tye o) an aroach M (asein and the state



M (asein and social strati)ication M (asein and o,er +the ,ill to o,er- M eing and olitics M The horiHons o) olitical te*orality M Existential satiality and the heno*enology o) !oundaries

M The Prince and nothing M Parlia*ent. the choice. and ?eingBto,ardsBdeath@ M %itiHenshi and the role o) the guardians o) eing M Re)erendu* and intentionality M The authentic and the inauthentic in urisrudence M Existential hilosohy o) urisrudence M Re'olution and the )light o) the gods M /r!anisation and the house o) eing$

(aturally. this is *erely a cursory outline o) the areas o) interest )or the ne, olitical science$ The )ourth hyothesis aeals to the concet o) the ?i*agination@ +l’imaginaire-$This toic is co'ered in detail in the ,or"s o) <il!ert Durand.J>; the !asic ideas o) ,hich discuss in *y ne, ,or" 'ociology o% the 6magination$J>= *agination. as a structure. recedes the indi'idual. the collecti'e. class. culture. and race +i) race exists as asociological heno*enon. ,hich is uncertain-. as ,ell as the state$ According to Durand.,ho de'eloed the ideas o) %arl <usta' 3ung and <aston achelard.J>> the i*agination)or*s the content o) hu*an existence !ased on the internal. original. and indeendentstructures that are e*!edded in it$ The interretation o) olitical rocesses in history a posteriori[*&] is o) no di))iculty )or the ?sociology o) the i*agination@. and it roducesi*ressi'e results$ ) ,e interret the i*agination as an autono*ous actor in the oliticalshere. including its a!ility to roect. and grant it a sort o) a ?legal status@. then ,e end u,ith an extraordinarily )ascinating and totally unde'eloed traectory$ E'en though thestudents o) 1C=J>C de*anded ?)reedo* )or the i*agination@. in that *o*ent they ,ereunli"ely to recognise the i*agination as a contender )or secial olitical su!ecti'ity$ Theyre*ained traed in the indi'idual I as art o) li!eralis*. e'en i) ?o) the Le)t@ I and class+)or exa*le. #arxis*. although strictly reconsidered on the !asis o) sychoanalysis-$ n the search )or the su!ect o) the Fourth Political Theory. ,e *ust !oldly enterinto a ne, ?her*eneutic circle@$ The Fourth Political Theory is the ,hole. ,hich. naturally.has not yet !een su))iciently descri!ed and de)ined$ t is co*rised o) the ideas o) itssu!ect. ,hich has !een suggested in a reli*inary )ashion$ ut. *o'ing constantly !et,een the uncertainty o) the ,hole and the uncertainty o) its arts and !ac" again. ,egradually !egin to clari)y *ore recisely ,hat is at sta"e$ This rocess. starting )ro* thestandoint o) dis*issing that ,hich ca*e !e)ore it +the reection o) the old her*eneuticcircles li!eralis* and the indi'idual. #arxis* and class. )ascis*V(aHis* and thestateVrace-. ,ill lead to the de'elo*ent o) a *ore constructi'e idea sooner or later$ tsstructure ,ill !e )urther clari)ied ,hen its her*eneutics co*es u against exlicitly a!surdcontradictions ,hich cannot !e resol'ed. or else stos corresonding to the real ,orld$ Thatis. a)ter starting )ro* a certain oint. the de'elo*ent o) the Fourth Political Theory ,ill !egin to de'elo scienti)ic and rational characteristics. ,hich. )or the ti*e !eing. are !arelydiscerni!le !ehind the o,er o) its ground!rea"ing intuitions and its re'olutionary.



herculean tas" o) o'erco*ing the old ideologies$ The entire her*eneutic circle o) the Fourth Political Theory should !e included inthe ?Fourth 0omos o) the Earth@$J0 This inclusion ,ill seci)y its content in e'en *oredetail and. in articular. ,ill re'eal the colossal eiste*ological otential o) geoolitics$The latter. in addition to its urely ractical and alied o!ecti'es. can !e 'ie,ed as a

!road in'itation to thin" satially in a ost*odern scenario. ,hen historical thin"ing. ,hichdo*inated the *odern era. is !eco*ing irrele'ant$ On nu*erous occasions. ha'e ,rittena!out the hilosohical and the sociological otential o) geoolitics in *y ,or"s$J1Satiality is one o) the *ost i*ortant existential co*onents o) (asein. so the aeal tothe Fourth 0omos o) the Earth can !e tied to the third su!ect hyothesis o) the FourthPolitical Theory$ (o, ,e can aroach the ro!le* o) creating the Fourth Political Theory )ro*another direction and exa*ine the contenders )or inclusion in this theory )ro* the threeclassical *odels$ 5o,e'er. !e)ore deter*ining ,hich asects o) the three old ideologies can !e !orro,ed )ro* the*. ha'ing neutralised the* and ta"en the* out o) context. riing the*out o) their o,n ?her*eneutic circle@. it is i*ortant to !rie)ly *ention ,hich asects *ust !e )ir*ly discarded$ ) ,e !egin ,ith )ascis* and (ational Socialis*. then here ,e *ust de)initi'elyreect all )or*s o) racis*$ Racis* is ,hat caused the collase o) (ational Socialis* in thehistorical. geoolitical. and theoretical sense$ This ,as not only a historical. !ut also a hilosohical collase$ Racis* is !ased on the !elie) in the innate o!ecti'e sueriority o)one hu*an race o'er another$ t ,as racis*. and not so*e other asect o) (ationalSocialis*. that !rought a!out such conse9uences. leading to i**easura!le su))ering on !oth sides. as ,ell as the collase o) <er*any and the Axis o,ers. not to *ention thedestruction o) the entire ideological roect o) the Third 6ay$ The cri*inal ractice o),iing out entire ethnic grous +3e,s. gysies. and Sla's- !ased on race ,as reciselyrooted in their racial theory I this is ,hat angers and shoc"s us a!out (aHis* to this day$n addition. 5itler@s antiBSe*itis*. and the doctrine that Sla's are ?su!hu*an@ and *ust !ecolonised. is ,hat led <er*any to go to ,ar against the So'iet /nion. ,hich cost us*illions o) li'es$ t is also true that this resulted in the <er*ans the*sel'es losing their olitical )reedo* and the right to articiate in olitical history )or a long ti*e. i) not)ore'er$ Today they are le)t only ,ith their econo*y and. in the !est case scenario. ,ith aconcern )or ecology$ The suorters o) the Third 6ay ,ere le)t in the osition o)ideological outcasts on the *argins o) society$ t ,as racis* I in theory and in ractice Ithat cri*inalised all other asects o) (ational Socialis* and )ascis*. causing these,orld'ie,s to !eco*e the o!ect o) curses and 'ili)ication$ 5itler@s racis*. ho,e'er. is only one )or* o) racis* I this tye o) racis* is the*ost o!'ious. straight)or,ard. and !iological. and there)ore the *ost reulsi'e$ There areother )or*s o) racis* I cultural +asserting that there are high and lo, cultures-.ci'ilisational +di'iding eole into those ci'ilised and those insu))iciently ci'ilised-.technological +'ie,ing technological de'elo*ent as the *ain criterion )or the 'alue o) asociety-. social +stating. in the sirit o) the Protestant doctrine o) redestination. that therich are the !est and the greatest as co*ared to the oor-. econo*ic +in ,hich all hu*anityis ran"ed according to the degree o) *aterial ,ellB!eing-. and e'olutionary +)or ,hich it isaxio*atic that hu*an society is the result o) !iological de'elo*ent. in ,hich the !asic rocesses o) the e'olution o) secies I sur'i'al o) the )ittest. natural selection. and so on



I continue today-$ Euroean and A*erican societies are )unda*entally a))licted ,ith thesetyes o) racis*. una!le to eradicate the* )ro* itsel) desite intensi'e e))orts$ eing )ullya,are o) ho, re'olting this heno*enon is. eole in the 6est tend to *a"e racis* ata!oo$ 5o,e'er. all this turns into a ,itch hunt I ne, ariahs accused o) ?)ascis*@ are its'icti*s. o)ten )or no aarent reason$ Thus. this 'ery olitical correctness and its nor*s are

trans)or*ed into a totalitarian disciline o) olitical. urely racist exclusions$ n this*anner. the institutionalised French Le)tBli!eral antiBracis* has gradually !eco*e thedistri!ution centre o) ?racial hatred@$ E'en A)ricans su))er )ro* !eing accused o) ?)ascis*@$Such ,as the case o) the unrestrained de)a*atory ca*aign against a ,ellB"no,n !lac"co*edian. DieudonnN #@!ala #@!ala. ,ho dared to *oc" certain hideous )eatures o) theconte*orary French esta!lish*ent in his routines. including antiBracis* +RasBleBFront.SOSBRacis*e. etcetera-$ And then ,hat7 A)rican co*edian #@!ala #@!ala ,as categorisedas ?!ro,n@. that is. accused o) ?)ascis*@ and ?racis*@$ The ne,est tyes o) racis* are gla*our. )ashion. and the latest trends inin)or*ation technology$ ts nor*s are set !y *odels. designers. the socialites o) olitical arties. and those ,ho insist on o,ning only the latest *odels o) *o!ile hones or latoco*uters$ %on)or*ity or noncon)or*ity ,ith the gla*our code is located at the 'ery !aseo) the *ass strategies )or social segregation and cultural aartheid$ Today. this is notassociated directly ,ith the econo*ic )actor. !ut is gradually gaining indeendentsociological )eatures this is the ghost o) the gla*our dictatorshi I the ne, generation o)racis*$ The 'ery ideology o) rogress is racist in its structure$ The assertion that the resentis !etter and *ore )ul)illing than the ast. and continual assurances that the )uture ,ill !ee'en !etter than the resent. are discri*inations against the ast and the resent. as ,ell asthe hu*iliation o) all those ,ho li'ed in the ast. an insult to the honour and dignity o) ourancestors and those o) others. and a 'iolation o) the rights o) the dead$ n *any cultures. thedead lay an i*ortant sociological role$ They are considered to still !e ali'e in a certainsense. resent in this ,orld. and articiating in its li)e$ This is true o) all ancient culturesand ci'ilisations$ illions o) inha!itants on this Earth !elie'e in this concet to this day$ n%hinese ci'ilisation. ,hich ,as !uilt uon the cult o) the dead and uon their re'erencealongside the li'ing. !eing dead is regarded as a high social status. in so*e ,ays suerior tothe status o) the li'ing$ The ideology o) rogress reresents the *oral genocide o) astgenerations I in other ,ords. real racis*$ E9ually 9uestiona!le is the idea o)*odernisation. ,hen it is ta"en as a sel)Be'ident 'irtue$ t is easy to detect the o!'ious signso) racis* in it$ /ndou!tedly racist is the idea o) uniolar glo!alisation$ t is !ased on the idea thatthe history and 'alues o) 6estern. and esecially A*erican. society are e9ui'alent touni'ersal la,s. and arti)icially tries to construct a glo!al society !ased on ,hat are actuallylocal and historically seci)ic 'alues I de*ocracy. the *ar"et. arlia*entarianis*.caitalis*. indi'idualis*. hu*an rights. and unli*ited technological de'elo*ent$ These'alues are local ones. e*erging )ro* the articular de'elo*ent o) a single culture. andglo!alisation is trying to i*ose the* onto all o) hu*anity as so*ething that is uni'ersaland ta"en )or granted$ This atte*t i*licitly argues that the 'alues o) all other eoles andcultures are i*er)ect. underde'eloed. and should !e su!ect to *odernisation andstandardisation in i*itation o) the 6estern *odel$ <lo!alisation is thus nothing *ore than a glo!ally deloyed *odel o) 6esternEuroean. or. rather. AngloBSaxon ethnocentris*. ,hich is the urest *ani)estation o)



racist ideology$ As one o) its essential )eatures. the Fourth Political Theory reects all )or*s and'arieties o) racis* and all )or*s o) the nor*ati'e hierarchisation o) societies !ased onethnic. religious. social. technological. econo*ic. or cultural grounds$ Societies can !eco*ared. !ut ,e cannot state that any one o) the* is o!ecti'ely !etter than the others$

Such an assess*ent is al,ays su!ecti'e. and any atte*t to raise a su!ecti'e assess*entto the status o) a theory is racis*$ This tye o) an atte*t is unscienti)ic and inhu*ane$ Thedi))erences !et,een societies in any sense can. in no shae or )or*. i*ly the sueriority o) one o'er the other$ This is a central axio* o) the Fourth Political Theory$ Further*ore. i)antiBracis* directly ooses the ideology o) (ational Socialis* +in other ,ords. the third olitical theory-. then it also indirectly attac"s %o**unis*. ,ith its class hatred. as ,ell asli!eralis*. ,ith its rogressi'is* as ,ell as its inherent )or*s o) econo*ic. technological.and cultural racis*$ nstead o) a uniolar ,orld. the Fourth Political Theory insists uon a*ultiolar ,orld. and instead o) uni'ersalis*. on luri'ersalis*. ,hich Alain de enoist !rilliantly ointed out in his !oo"$J2

%learly highlighting the *ain traectory )or the reection o) all )or*s and 'arietieso) racis*. including the !iological theories inherent in (ational Socialis*. ,e can identi)y,hat the Fourth Political Theory *ay !orro, )ro* it$ Strongly reecting any suggestion o)racis*. ,e. in )act. destroy the ?her*eneutic circle@ o) (ational Socialist ideology andneutralise its content. under*ining its integrity and "ey )oundations$ 6ithout racis*. (ational Socialis* is no longer (ational Socialis*. either theoretically or ractically. and !eco*es har*less and deconta*inated$ 6e can no, roceed ,ithout )ear to analyse ito!ecti'ely in search o) those ideas ,ithin it that could !e integrated into the FourthPolitical Theory$ 6e note a ositi'e attitude to,ard the ethnos.J8 an ethnocentris* directed to,ardthat tye o) existence ,hich is )or*ed ,ithin the structure o) the ethnos itsel). and ,hichre*ains intact throughout a 'ariety o) stages. including the highly di))erentiated tyes o)societies ,hich a eole *ay de'elo in the course o) their history$ This toic has )ounddee resonance in certain hilosohical directions o) the %onser'ati'e Re'olutionJ: +)orinstance. %arl Sch*itt and his theory o) ?the rights o) eoles@. in Ada* #Wller.J; Arthur#oeller 'an den ruc". and so on- or the <er*an school o) ethnic sociology +6ilhel*#Whl*ann.J= Richard Thurn,ald.J> and others-$ -thnos is the greatest 'alue o) theFourth Political Theory as a cultural heno*enon as a co**unity o) language. religious !elie). daily li)e. and the sharing o) resources and goals as an organic entity ,ritten into an?acco**odating landscae@ +Le' <u*ile'-J as a re)ined syste* )or constructing*odels )or *arried li)e as an al,aysBuni9ue *eans o) esta!lishing a relationshi ,ith theoutside ,orld as the *atrix o) the ?li)e,orld@ +Ed*und 5usserl- and as the source o) allthe ?languageBga*es@ +Lud,ig 6ittgenstein-$JC O) course. ethnicity ,as not the )ocal oint either in (ational Socialis*. or in Fascis*$ et. li!eralis* as an ideology. calling )orthe li!eration )ro* all )or*s o) collecti'e identity in general. is entirely inco*ati!le ,iththe ethnos and ethnocentris*. and is an exression o) a syste*ic theoretical andtechnological ethnocide$ #arxist ideology did not ay *uch attention to the ethnos either. !elie'ing that theethnos is o'erco*e in a classB!ased society. and that no trace o) it re*ains in a !ourgeoisand. e'en *ore so. a roletarian society$ ased on the latter. the rincile o) ?roletarianinternationalis*@ !eco*es a!solute$ The only lace ,here the ethnos recei'ed any "ind o)



attention is in dissident. Third 6ay currents ,hich ,ere rather *arginal in relation to the olitical *ainstrea*. e'en though (aHi orthodoxy !loc"ed the organic de'elo*ent o) theethnoBsociological su!ect area ,ith its racist dog*a$ 6hate'er the case *ay !e. the ethnos and ethnocentris* +6ilhel* #Whl*ann-ha'e e'ery reason to !e considered as candidates )or the !eco*ing the su!ect o) the Fourth

Political Theory$ At the sa*e ti*e. ,e *ust again and again ay attention to the )act that,e 'ie, the ethnos in the lural. ,ithout trying to esta!lish any "ind o) a hierarchicalsyste* ethnicities are di))erent. !ut each o) the* is. in itsel). uni'ersal ethnicities li'e andde'elo. !ut this li)e and this de'elo*ent do not )it into one seci)ic aradig* they areoen and al,ays distinct ethnicities *ix and searate. !ut neither one nor the other is goodor e'il per se I ethnicities the*sel'es generate the criteria !y ,hich others are udged.each ti*e in a di))erent ,ay$ 6e can dra, *any conclusions !ased on this oint$ n articular. ,e can relati'ise the 'ery notion o) ?olitics@. ,hich co*es )ro* the nor*ati'e'alues o) the city. the polis.JC0 and. conse9uently. o) the ur!an *odel o) sel)Borganisation,ithin the co**unity +or the society-$ As a general aradig*. ,e can re'ie, ,hat RichardThurn,ald called (or%staat I a ?'illageBstate@$JC1 The 'illageBstate is an alternati'e 'ie,o) olitics )ro* the ersecti'e o) the ethnos naturally li'ing in !alance ,ith itsen'iron*ent$ This 'ie, is not re)lecti'e o) the city +roecting its structure onto the rest o)the country-. !ut is that o) the 'illage or the ro'ince$ t co*es )ro* the standoint o) thoseregions that ha'e !een eriheral in classical olitics. !ut ,hich are the centre o) the FourthPolitical Theory$ 5o,e'er. this is only one exa*le o) all the ossi!ilities that oen u i),e accet the ethnos as the historical su!ect$ et. e'en this sho,s the ossi!ilities inherentin trans)or*ing e'en the *ost !asic olitical concets. and ho, drastic the re'ision o) anesta!lished dog*a can !e$ (o, let us discuss ,hat could !e ta"en )ro* %o**unis*. the second oliticaltheory$ First. ho,e'er. let us decide on ,hat should !e discarded in order to de*olish its?her*eneutic circle@$ First and )ore*ost. the %o**unist theories regarding historical*aterialis* and the notion o) unidirectional rogress are inalica!le to our uroses$ 6eha'e re'iously tal"ed a!out the racist ele*ent. ,hich is e*!edded in the idea o) rogress$t loo"s articularly re'olting ,ithin historical *aterialis*. ,hich not only rioritises the)uture ahead o) the ast. !rutally 'iolating the ?rights o) the ancestors@. !ut also e9uates theli'ing ?hu*an society@ +Richard Thurn,ald- ,ith a *echanical syste* oeratingindeendently o) hu*anity. according to la,s that are *onotonic and uni)or* )or all$#aterialist reductionis* and econo*ic deter*inis* co*rise the *ost reulsi'e asect o)#arxis*$ n ractice. it ,as exressed through the destruction o) the siritual and religiousheritage o) those societies in ,hich #arxis* ca*e to do*inate$ An arrogant conte*t )orthe ast. a 'ulgar *aterialist interretation o) siritual culture. a )ocus exclusi'ely uonecono*ic )actors. a ositi'e attitude to,ard the rocess o) creating a social di))erentialthrough the ?dictatorshi o) the roletariat@. and the idea o) class as the only historicalsu!ect I the Fourth Political Theory reects all these asects o) #arxis*$ 5o,e'er.,ithout these co*onents. #arxis* +and. *ore generally. socialis*- ceases to !e itsel).and. conse9uently. it is rendered har*less as a )ullB)ledged ideology. !rea"ing into searateco*onents that do not reresent a single ,hole$ #arxis* is rele'ant in ter*s o) its descrition o) li!eralis*. in identi)ying thecontradictions o) caitalis*. in its criticis* o) the !ourgeois syste*. and in re'ealing thetruth !ehind the !ourgeoisBde*ocratic olicies o) exloitation and ensla'e*ent ,hich are resented as ?de'elo*ent@ and ?li!eration@$ #arxis*@s critical otential is highly use)ul



and alica!le$ t *ay ,ell !e included in the arsenal o) the Fourth Political Theory$ ut. i)so. #arxis* ,ill not aear as an ideology that ro'ides ans,ers to a )ull range o)e*erging issues I ans,ers that are rational and axio*atic in their )oundation I !ut as anexressi'e *yth or a ,itty sociological *ethod$ The #arxis* ,hich ,e can accet is*ythic. sociological #arxis*$

As a *yth. #arxis* tells us the story o) the original state o) aradise +?ri*iti'e%o**unis*@-. ,hich ,as gradually lost +?the initial di'ision o) la!our and thestrati)ication o) the ri*iti'e society@-$ Then the contradictions gre,. *o'ing to,ard the oint ,hen. at the end o) this ,orld. they ,ere reincarnated. in their *ost aradig*atically ure )or*. as the con)rontation !et,een La!our and %aital$ %aital I the !ourgeoisie andli!eral de*ocracy I ersoni)ied glo!al e'il. exloitation. alienation. lies. and 'iolence$La!our e*!odied a great drea* and an ancient *e*ory o) the ?co**on good@. and itsac9uisition +the ?surlus 'alue@- !y an e'il *inority ga'e !irth to all the ro!le*s o)*odern li)e$ La!our +the roletariat- *ust recognise the aradoxes inherent in this state o)a))airs and rise u against their *asters in order to !uild a ne, society I a ne, aradiseon Earth %o**unis*$ Only this ,ill not !e the naturally occurring ri*iti'e %o**unis*. !ut an arti)icial. scienti)ic "ind. in ,hich the di))erential. accu*ulated o'er centuries and*illennia o) alienation. ,ill ser'e the ?co**une@. the ?co**unity@$ n this ,ay. the drea*,ill !eco*e a reality$ This *yth )its neatly into the structure o) eschatological consciousness. ,hichoccuies a signi)icant lace in *ythologies o) all tri!es and eoles. not to *ention thehighly di))erentiated religions$ That alone sea"s in its )a'our in order )or us to treat it ,iththe ut*ost consideration$

On the other hand. as sociology. #arxis* is tre*endously use)ul in re'ealing those*echanis*s o) alienation and *ysti)ication that li!eralis* uses to usti)y its do*inion. andas roo) o) its ?correctness@$ eing a *yth itsel). in its ole*ical. acti'ist )or*. #arxis*ser'es as an excellent tool to exose the !ourgeois ?great stories@ in order to o'erthro, thecredi!ility o) li!eral athos$ And in this caacity I ?against li!eralis*@ I it can !e usede))ecti'ely under the ne, conditions a)ter all. ,e continue to exist under caitalis*. andhence. #arxist criticis* o) it. and the struggle against it. re*ain on the agenda. e'en i) theold )or*s o) this struggle ha'e !eco*e irrele'ant$ #arxis* is o)ten correct ,hen it descri!es its ene*y. esecially the !ourgeoisie$5o,e'er. its o,n atte*ts to understand itsel) lead to )ailure$ The )irst and the *ost ro*inent contradiction is #arx@s un)ul)illed rediction a!out the tye o) societies that arethe *ost rone to socialist re'olutions$ 5e ,as con)ident that this ,ould ta"e lace in thegreatly industrialised countries o) 6estern Euroe. ,hich had a high le'el o) *anu)acturingand contained a large roortion o) ur!an roletariat$ Such re'olutions ,ere consideredi*ossi!le in agrarian countries. as ,ell as those countries ,ith an ?Asiatic@ *ode o) roduction. due to their suosed !ac",ardness$ n the T,entieth century. e'erythingoccurred exactly to the contrary$ Socialist re'olutions and socialist societies de'eloed inagrarian countries ,hich had a traditional. rural oulation. ,hile nothing si*ilar occurredin any o) the highly de'eloed nations o) Euroe and A*erica$ 5o,e'er. e'en in thosecountries ,here socialis* ,as 'ictorious. #arxist dog*a did not allo, )or a rethin"ing o)its !asic logical assu*tions. such as to reconsider the role o) reBindustrial )actors. or tohonestly e'aluate the real o,er o) *yth$ n its 6estern and So'iet 'ersions. #arxis*@ssel)Bre)lection turned out to !e 9uestiona!le and inaccurate$ 6hile usti)ia!ly criticisingli!eralis*. #arxis* ,as seriously *ista"en a!out itsel). ,hich. at so*e oint. doo*ed its



o,n )ate$ t e'entually collased e'en in those laces ,here it had triu*hed$ And. in thoseareas ,here #arx had exected it to ,in. caitalis* re'ailed the roletariat dissol'ed intothe *iddle class. and disaeared inside the consu*er society. contrary to exectations and redictions$ n the end. Euroean re'olutionary %o**unists turned into ettyB!ourgeoisclo,ns. entertaining the !ored and aded de*ocratic u!lic$

) #arxis* itsel) ,as una!le to loo" at itsel) )ro* the roer standoint. thennothing re'ents us )ro* doing so in the context o) the Fourth Political Theory$ Alain deenoist has a classic !oo" entitled 7u de (roite[#2] +A Gie, )ro* the Right-. in ,hich hesuggested the rereading o) 'arious olitical ,riters +!oth )ro* the Right and the Le)t- )ro*the oint o) 'ie, o) the ?(e, Right@$ This !oo" led to the incetion o) the ?(e, Right@*o'e*ent in Euroe$ t contains not only a criti9ue o) those ideas ,hich ser'ed as dog*a)or the ?Old Right@. !ut also a ?re'olutionary@ and ,ellB*eant reading o) such authors as the%o**unist Antonio <ra*sci.JC8 exa*ined )ro* the oint o) 'ie, o) the Right$ t is recisely this reading o) #arx I ?)ro* the Right@. )ro* the standoint o) *yths. and )ro*archaic and holistic sociology I that ,ould !e articularly )itting at the resent ti*e$ Finally. ,hat can ,e ta"e )ro* li!eralis*7 And here. as al,ays. ,e *ust !egin ,iththose asects that *ust not !e !orro,ed$ Perhas. in this case. e'erything is descri!edclearly and in a )airly detailed *anner in Alain de enoist@s ,or" Against i!eralism/

To$ard the Fourth Political Theory. to ,hich "ee constantly and consciously re)erring in*y exlanation$ Li!eralis* is the *ain ene*y o) the Fourth Political Theory. ,hich is !eing constructed seci)ically to !e in total oosition to it$ et. e'en here. as ,as the case,ith the other olitical theories. there is so*ething i*ortant and so*ething secondary$Li!eralis* as a ,hole rests on the indi'idual as its *ost !asic co*onent$ t is theseindi'iduals. collecti'ely !ut in isolation )ro* one another. that are ta"en as the ,hole$ t is. erhas. )or this reason that the ?her*eneutic circle@ o) li!eralis* turned out to !e the *ostdura!le it has the s*allest or!it and rotates around its su!ect I the indi'idual$ n order toshatter this circle. ,e *ust stri"e the indi'idual. a!olish hi*. and cast hi* into the erihery o) olitical considerations$ Li!eralis* is ,ell a,are o) this danger. and there)oreunderta"es one !attle a)ter another ,ith all other ideologies and theories I social. hilosohical. and olitical I that encroach on the indi'idual. inscri!ing his identity into a*ore general context$ The neuroses and )ears located at the athogenic core o) li!eral hilosohy are clearly seen in The 8pen 'ociety and its -nemies.JC: a classic o) neoBli!eralis* !y Karl Poer$ 5e co*ared )ascis* and %o**unis* !ased recisely on the)act that !oth ideologies integrate the indi'idual into a suraBindi'idual co**unity. into a,hole. into a totality. ,hich Poer i**ediately 9uali)ied as ?totalitarianis*@$ 5a'ingunder*ined the indi'idual as the constituti'e )igure o) the entire olitical and social syste*.,e can ut an end to li!eralis*$ O) course. this is not that easy to achie'e$ (e'ertheless. itis no, o!'ious that the ,ea"est +and the strongest- asect o) the )irst olitical theory co*es)ro* its direct aeal to the individual" leading that he re*ain hi*sel). !y hi*sel) in hiso,n autono*ous indi'iduality. uni9ueness. articularity. and artiality$ n any case. theFourth Political Theory can interret Poer@s ho!ias in its )a'our$ +This led hi* and his)ollo,ers to anecdotal conclusions 9uite telling are his )ee!leB*inded criticis*s o) 5egelin the sirit o) a ?s*ear ca*aign@. and the accusations o) )ascis* directed to,ard Platoand Aristotle- /nderstanding ,hat the ene*y )ears the *ost. ,e roose the theory thate'ery hu*an identity is acceta!le and usti)ied. excet )or that o) the indi'idual$ #an isanything !ut an indi'idual$ 6e *ust loo" care)ully at a li!eral. ,hen he reads or hears anaxio* o) this "ind$ thin" this ,ill !e an i*ressi'e sectacle I all his ?tolerance@ ,ill



instantly e'aorate$ ?5u*an rights@ ,ill !e distri!uted to anyone. ust not the one ,ho daresto utter so*ething along these lines$ This. ho,e'er. descri!ed in *ore detail in *y essay 9a:imal ;umanism[#<] as ,ell as in *y !oo". The Philosophy o% Politics$JC=

Li!eralis* *ust !e de)eated and destroyed. and the indi'idual *ust !e thro,n o))

his edestal$ et. is there anything that ,e could ta"e a,ay )ro* li!eralis* I )ro* thisli!eralis* that is hyothetically de)eated and has lost its axis7 es. there is$ t is the idea o) )reedo*$ And not ust the idea o) ?)reedo* )or@ I thatsa*e su!stanti'e )reedo* reected !y #ill in his li!eral rogra*. ,hich concentrated onthe ?)reedo* )ro*@$ 6e *ust say ?yes@ to )reedo* in all its *eanings and in all its ersecti'es$ The Fourth Political Theory should !e a theory o) a!solute )reedo*. !ut notas in #arxis*. in ,hich it coincides ,ith a!solute necessity +this correlation denies)reedo* its 'ery core-$ (o. )reedo* can !e o) any "ind. )ree o) any correlation or lac"thereo). )acing any direction and any goal$ Freedo* is the greatest 'alue o) the FourthPolitical Theory. since it coincides ,ith its centre and its dyna*ic. energetic core$ The di))erence is that this )reedo* is concei'ed as hu*an )reedo*. not as )reedo*)or the indi'idual I as the )reedo* gi'en !y ethnocentris* and the )reedo* o) (asein. the)reedo* o) culture and the )reedo* o) society. and the )reedo* )or any )or* o) su!ecti'ityexcet )or that o) an indi'idual$ #o'ing in the oosite direction. Euroean thought longago ca*e to a di))erent conclusion ?*an +as an indi'idualis a rison ,ithout ,alls@JC>+3eanBPaul Sartre- that is to say. the )reedo* o) an indi'idual is a rison$ n order to attaintrue )reedo*. ,e *ust go !eyond the li*its o) the indi'idual$ n this sense. the FourthPolitical Theory is a theory o) li!eration. o) going !eyond the rison ,alls into the outside,orld. ,hich !egins ,here the urisdiction o) indi'idual identity ends$ Freedo* is al,ays )raught ,ith chaos. !ut is also oen to oortunities$ Placed intothe narro, )ra*e,or" o) indi'iduality. the a*ount o) )reedo* !eco*es *icroscoic. and.ulti*ately. )ictitious$ The indi'idual is granted )reedo* !ecause the uses to ,hich he can ut it are extre*ely li*ited I it ,ill re*ain contained ,ithin the tiny scoe o) hisindi'iduality and that o'er ,hich he has direct control$ This is the )li side o) li!eralis* atits core. it is totalitarian and intolerant o) di))erences. and *ost esecially oosed to therealisation o) a great ,ill$ t is only reared to tolerate s*all eole it rotects not so*uch the rights o) *an. !ut. rather. the rights o) a s*all *an$ This ?s*all *an@ can !eallo,ed to do anything. !ut in site o) all his desire. he ,ill !e una!le to do anything$ et. !eyond the s*all *an. on the other side o) ?*ini*al hu*anis*@.JC one can ust gli*sethe closest horiHon o) genuine )reedo*$ 5o,e'er. it is also there that great ris" and seriousdangers e*erge$ 5a'ing le)t the li*its o) indi'iduality. *an can !e crushed !y the ele*entso) li)e and !y dangerous chaos$ 5e *ay ,ant to esta!lish order$ And this is entirely ,ithinhis right I the right o) a great *an +homo ma:imus- I a real *an o) ?eing and ti*e@+#artin 5eidegger-$ And. li"e any order. this ossi!le order. the co*ing order *ay !ee*!odied in indi'idual )or*s$ (onetheless. this is not indi'iduality. !ut indi'iduation note*ty rotations around that ,hich has !een recei'ed )ro* the li!eral authorities and ,hichis *eaningless. !ut the actual execution o) tas"s. as ,ell as the ta*ing o) the restless andexciting horiHons o) the ,ill$ The !earer o) )reedo* in this case ,ill !e (asein$ The re'ious ideologies. each inits o,n ,ay. alienated (asein )ro* its *eaning. restricted it. and i*risoned it in one ,ayor another. *a"ing it inauthentic$ Each o) these ideologies ut a cheerless doll. das 9an"

[##] in the lace o) (asein$ The )reedo* o) (asein lies in i*le*enting the oortunity to



!e authentic that is. in the realisation o) 'ein[=>>] *ore so than o) da$J101 ?ThereBeing@consists o) ?there@ and o) ?eing@$ n order to understand ,here this ?there@ is located. ,eshould oint it out and *a"e a !asic. )oundational gesture$ et. in order )or ?eing@ to )lo,into ?there@ li"e a )ountain. ,e *ust lace all o) this together I lace this entireher*eneutic circle into the do*ain o) co*lete )reedo*$ There)ore. the Fourth Political

Theory is. at the sa*e ti*e. a )unda*ental ontological theory ,hich contains the a,arenesso) the truth o) eing at its core$ 6ithout )reedo*. ,e cannot )orce anyone to exist$ E'en i) ,e !uild the oti*alsociety. and e'en i) ,e )orce e'eryone to act aroriately and to oerate ,ithin the)ra*e,or" o) the correct aradig*. ,e could ne'er guarantee such an outco*e$ Thisresults )ro* a *an@s )reedo* to choose eing$ O) course. *ost o)ten. *an gra'itatesto,ard the ?inauthentic@ existence o) (asein. trying to dodge the issue. to succu*! togossi ++erede- and to sel)B*oc"ery$ Li!erated (asein *ay not choose the ath to eing.*ay hide in shelter. and *ay. once again. clutter the ,orld ,ith its hallucinations and )ears.and its concerns and intentions$ %hoosing (asein *ay corrut the Fourth Political Theoryitsel). turning it into a sel)Barody$ This is a ris". !ut eing is a ris". too$ The only 9uestionis ,ho ris"s ,hat$ ou ris" e'erything. or e'erything and e'eryone uts you at ris"$ et.only that ,hich increases )reedo* ,ill *a"e the choice o) authentic eing a reality I onlythen ,ill the sta"es !e truly great. ,hen the danger is in)inite$

/nli"e other olitical theories. the Fourth Political Theory does not ,ant to lie.soothe. or seduce$ t su**ons us to li'e dangerously. to thin" ris"ily. to li!erate and torelease all those things that cannot !e dri'en !ac" inside$ The Fourth Political Theory truststhe )ate o) eing. and entrusts )ate to eing$ Any strictly constructed ideology is al,ays a si*ulacru* and al,ays inauthentic.that is to say. it al,ays is the lac" o) )reedo*$ There)ore. the Fourth Political Theory shouldnot hurry in order to !eco*e a set o) !asic axio*s$ Perhas. it is *ore i*ortant to lea'eso*e things unsaid. to !e disco'ered in exectations and insinuations. in allegations and re*onitions$ The Fourth Political Theory should !e co*letely oen$



; The Criti<ue of onotonic Processes

The idea o) *odernisation is !ased on the idea o) rogress$ 6hen ,e use the ter*?*odernisation@. ,e certainly *ean rogress. linear accu*ulation. and a certain continuous rocess$ 6hen ,e sea" o) ?*odernisation@. ,e resuose de'elo*ent. gro,th. ande'olution$ This is the sa*e se*antic syste*$ Thus. ,hen ,e sea" o) the ?unconditionally ositi'e achie'e*ents o) *odernisation@. ,e agree ,ith a 'ery i*ortant !asic aradig* I ,e agree ,ith the idea that ?hu*an society is de'eloing. rogressing. e'ol'ing. gro,ing.and getting !etter and !etter@$ That is to say. ,e share a articular 'ision o) historicaloti*is*$ This historical oti*is* ertains to the three classical olitical ideologies+li!eralis*. %o**unis*. and )ascis*-$ t is rooted in the scienti)ic. societal. olitical. andsocial ,orld'ie, in the hu*anities and natural sciences o) the Eighteenth and (ineteenthcenturies. ,hen the idea o) rogress. de'elo*ent. and gro,th ,as ta"en as an axio* thatcould not !e dou!ted$ n other ,ords. this entire set o) axio*s. as ,ell as the ,holehistoriograhy and redicti'e analytics o) the (ineteenth century in the hu*anities and thenatural sciences. ,as !uilt on the idea o) rogress$ 6e can easily trace the de'elo*ent o)this su!ect I the idea o) rogress I in the three olitical ideologies$ Let us turn to the classical li!eralis* o) the sociologist 5er!ert Sencer$J102 5eclai*ed that the de'elo*ent o) hu*an society is the next stage o) the e'olution o) theani*al secies. and that there is a connection. and a continuity. !et,een the ani*al ,orldand social de'elo*ent$J108 And. there)ore. all the la,s o) the ani*al ,orld leading tode'elo*ent. i*ro'e*ent. and e'olution in the ani*al ,orld. ,ithin Dar,in@s)ra*e,or". can !e roected onto society$ This is the !asis o) the )a*ous theory. ?SocialDar,inis*@. o) ,hich Sencer ,as a classic reresentati'e$ ). according to Dar,in. thedri'ing )orce !ehind the e'olution o) the ani*al "ingdo* is the struggle )or sur'i'al andnatural selection. then the sa*e rocess *ust ta"e lace in society. argued Sencer$ And.the *ore er)ect this struggle is )or sur'i'al +interBsecies. intraBsecies. the struggle o) thestrong against the ,ea". the co*etition )or resources. leasure-. the *ore er)ect oursociety !eco*es$ The 9uestion is ho, to aid this rocess o) selection$ According toSencer. this is the central the*e o) the li!eral *odel. and is the *eaning o) social rogress$ There)ore. i) ,e are li!erals. in one ,ay or the other. ,e inherited this?Hoological@ aroach to social de'elo*ent !ased on the struggle against and thedestruction o) the ,ea" !y the strong$ 5o,e'er. Sencer@s theory contains one i*ortant oint$ 5e argued that there aret,o hases o) social de'elo*ent$ The )irst hase occurs ,hen the struggle )or sur'i'al isconducted crudely. !y )orce this is characteristic o) the ancient ,orld$ The second occurs,hen the struggle is carried out *ore su!tly through econo*ic *eans$ Once the !ourgeoisre'olution ta"es lace. the struggle )or sur'i'al does not sto$ According to Sencer. itac9uires ne,. *ore ad'anced. and *ore e))icient )or*s it relocates into the shere o) the



*ar"et$ 5ere. the strongest sur'i'e I that is. the richest$ nstead o) the *ost o,er)ul)eudal lord. a hero. a strong erson. or a leader. ,ho si*ly seiHes all that is u )or gra!saround his co**unity. ta"ing a,ay all that !elongs to other nations and races and sharing it,ith the ruling ethnicity or caste. no, co*es the caitalist. ,ho !rings the sa*e aggressi'eani*al rincile to the *ar"et. the cororation. and the trading co*any$ The transition

)ro* the order o) o,er to the order o) *oney. according to Sencer. does not *ean thehu*anisation o) the rocess. !ut only underscores greater e))ecti'eness$ That is to say. thestruggle in the *ar"et shere !et,een the strong +*eaning rich- and the ,ea" +*eaning oor- !eco*es *ore e))icient and leads to higher le'els o) de'elo*ent until suerBrich.suerBstrong. and suerBde'eloed countries aear$ Progress. according to Sencer. and.*ore !roadly sea"ing. according to li!eralis*. is al,ays the gro,th o) econo*ic o,er.since this continues to re)ine the struggle )or sur'i'al o) the ani*al secies. the ,ar)are*ethods o) strong nations. and the castes ,ithin the )ra*e,or" o) reBcaitalist states$Thus. an ani*alistic )or* o) aggression is e*!edded in the li!eral idea o) rogress. ,hichis regarded as the *ain traectory o) social de'elo*ent$ 6ith *ore econo*ic )reedo*.there is greater o,er )or ta"eo'ers. attac"s. *ergers and ac9uisitions$ Li!eral discourse.*eaning the analysis o) the li!eral ideologist. is a co*letely animal discourse$ n such asyste*. the ?*ore ad'anced@ la, or the *ore ad'anced. ?*ore *odern@ *ethods o) roduction do not *ean that they are *ore hu*ane ,hat it *eans is that they allo, *oreoortunities )or the strong to *ore e))ecti'ely realise their o,er. ,hile the ,ea" can onlyad*it de)eat. or. i) they ha'e any strength le)t. )ight on$ n this *anner. the *odern idea o)econo*ic gro,th. as ,e see in li!erals such as Alan <reensan and en ernan"e. has its)oundation and origins in the idea o) the struggle !et,een secies. that is. the )eraldestruction o) the ,ea" !y the strong. or the 'alidation o) the strong at the exense o) the,ea"$ Only instead o) the con)lict !et,een redators and her!i'ores. ,e ha'e the golden !illion.J10: and in that golden !illion. their o,n ?"ings o) !easts@ +the (e, or" Stoc"Exchange and the 6orld an" !an"ers. ,ho de'our all that is u )or gra!s and. at the sa*eti*e. turn the )orests o) the ,orld into ?social in)rastructures@$ There)ore. ,hen ,e sea" o) ?*odernisation@ in the li!eral 'ein. o) necessity ,e*ean the enhance*ent o) the social. olitical. cultural. siritual. and in)or*ational scenario,ithin ,hich the a!solute aggression o) the strong against the ,ea" can !e i*le*ented$ A*erican li!eral Ayn RandJ10; +<reensanJ10= ,as one o) her greatest ad*irers-created an entire hilosohy +called ?O!ecti'is*@-J10> !ased on the )ollo,ing !lunt ideai) one is rich. then he is good$ She reached the li*its o) 6e!er@sJ10 idea a!out the origino) caitalis* in the Protestant ethic and said that he ,ho is ?rich@ is al,ays and necessarilythe ?good@ I al*ost a saint. ,hile the ?oor@ *an is e'il. laHy. !ad. and corrut I a?sinner@$ eing oor. according to Ayn Rand. is to !e a sin)ul 'illain. ,hereas to !e rich isto !e a saint$ She roosed to esta!lish the ?consiracy@ o) the rich +*eaning the strong. !right. sacred. and o,er)ul caitalists- against any "ind o) la!our *o'e*ent. the easants.and against all those ,ho stand )or social ustice. or those ,ho are si*ly oor$ Such acrusade o) the rich against the oor is the !asis o) the O!ecti'ist ideology$ Peole li"e<reensan and the current head o) the /nited States Federal Reser'e. ernan"e. are?O!ecti'ists@ I that is. those ,ho interret *odernisation. rogress. econo*ic gro,th. andde'elo*ent in the li!eral 'ein$ ) ,e understand *odernisation li"e li!eral de*ocrats. then that *eans that ,e arein'ited to oin in this terri!le struggle )or sur'i'al at its greatest intensity. and to !eco*e ust li"e the*. trying to gra! a lace at the trough o) glo!alisation$ <lo!alisation. in this



case. is the ne, !attle)ield in the struggle )or sur'i'al. the struggle o) the rich against the oor$ (aturally. the ideologically hilosohic and *oral re*ise o) this 'ersion o)*odernisation is entirely alien to the Russian eole in ter*s o) our history and our culture$6e reect this tye o) *odernisation unconditionally. and those ,ho *ight try to i*ose it

uon us ,ill ay dearly )or doing so$ n %o**unis*. the idea o) unidirectional rogress is also resent$ #arx argued thatchanges in social structures. ,hich lead to the i*ro'e*ent and de'elo*ent o) societiesand econo*ies. ,ill sooner or later result in the %o**unist roletarian re'olution.redistri!uting the accu*ulated ,ealth as a result o) the de'elo*ent o) alienatingtechnologies$ The exroriation o) the exroriators ,ill occur$ (e'ertheless. ,hile this hasnot haened. #arxists say. let e'erything !e as it *ay in the de'elo*ent o) caitalis*$#arx also sa, history ositi'ely. as ad'ance*ent. and 'ie,ed it as a tale o) gro,th andi*ro'e*ent. )ro* the *inus to the lus. )ro* the si*le to the co*lex$ t is telling that the lion@s share o) The Communist 9ani%esto[=>#] !y #arx andEngels is de'oted to criticising seci)ically those antiB!ourgeois olitical hilosohies thatdi))ered )ro* #arxis* )irst and )ore*ost. those that are )eudal. reactionary. andnationalistic$ y doing so. #arx and Engels stro'e to e*hasise that their ?%o**unis*@,as directed against the !ourgeoisie in a *anner di))erent )ro* the criticis* !y the RightB,ing antiBcaitalists$ n reality. co*ared to all the other ?reactionary@ and ?conser'ati'e@ roects. #arxists stand on the side o) the !ourgeoisie and see" to !ring its 'ictory closer.since it translates into the narrati'e o) historical rogress and the logic o) *odernisation$For this reason. #arxis* reects conser'atis* in all o) its )or*s$ The contradictions !et,een the %o**unists and the caitalists ac9uire a articularly acute character as thetriu*h o) caitalis* !eco*es irre'ersi!le and co*lete$ t is here that the %o**unistsenter history as the 'anguard o) the roletariat and ush historical rogress )urther along I to,ard socialis* and %o**unis*$ Once again. ,e see Dar,inis* in #arxis*. including the )ull accetance o)e'olutionary ideas and its !elie) in the *iraculous o,er o) scienti)ic rogress andtechnological i*ro'e*ent$ 6e li'ed through this "ind o) ?*odernisation@ in the T,entieth century I aid )or it*ore than in )ull the eole clearly do not ha'e the slightest desire to reeat suchexeri*ents$ There)ore. this 'ersion o) *odernisation ,ill not ,or" I and *oreo'er. noone sea"s out in )a'our o) it$ Oddly enough. )ascis*. too. is an e'olutionary *o'e*ent$ 6e *ay re*e*!erFriedrich (ietHsche. ,ho so"e o) the ?!lond !east@ and o) the ?,ill to o,er@ that dri'eshistory$ (ietHsche ,as an e'olutionist and !elie'ed that. !ased on the logic o) thede'elo*ent o) secies. *an ,ill !e relaced !y the ?Suer*an@. *uch li"e ho, *an )irstca*e to relace the ae$ 5e ,rote. ?6hat is the ae to a hu*an7 A laughing stoc" or a ain)ul e*!arrass*ent$ And that is recisely ,hat the hu*an shall !e to the o'er*an alaughing stoc" or a ain)ul e*!arras*ent$@J110 The (ational Socialists adated a racialinterretation o) this idea that the ,hite race is ?*ore de'eloed@ than the !lac". yello,. orany other "ind. and on this !asis. has the ?right@ to rule the ,orld$ 5ere. ,e encounter thesa*e rogressi'ist outloo". along ,ith the idea o) de'elo*ent and i*ro'e*ent. all o),hich leads to the assu*tion o) racial sueriority on the grounds that the ,hite nationso,n sohisticated instru*ents o) industrial roduction. ,hile other ethnic grous do not$ Today. ,e reect and criticise )ascis* )or its racial co*onent. !ut ,e )orget that



this ideology is also !uilt on the ideas o) rogress and e'olution. ust li"e the other t,o olitical theories o) *odernity$ ) ,e ,ere to 'isualise the essence o) (aHi ideology and therole o) rogress and e'olution in it. then the connection !et,een racis* and e'olution,ould !eco*e o!'ious to us$ This connection I in a concealed )or* I can !e seen inli!eralis* and e'en in %o**unis*$ E'en i) not !iological. ,e see cultural. technological.

and econo*ic racis* in the ideology o) the )ree *ar"et and in the dictatorshi o) the roletariat$n one ,ay or another. all three ideologies originate )ro* the sa*e trend the idea o)

gro,th. de'elo*ent. rogress. e'olution. and o) the constant. cu*ulati'e i*ro'e*ent o)society$ They all 'ie, the ,orld and the entire historical rocess as linear gro,th$ Theydi))er in their interretation o) this rocess. and they attri!ute di))erent *eanings to it. !utthey all accet the irre'ersi!ility o) history and its rogressi'e character$ Thus. *odernisation is a concet that sends us !ac" directly to the three classical olitical ideologies$ Further*ore. ,e can see the co**on ground that unites the threeideologies through the idea o) rogress and in their ositi'e e'aluation o) the concet o)?*odernisation@$ (o,adays. all three o) these ideologies are !eing gradually discarded$This is strongly e'ident in regard to )ascis* and %o**unis*. !ut is so*e,hat lesso!'ious ,ith regard to li!eralis*. !ut e'en li!eralis* is gradually ceasing to satis)y the*aority o) the ,orld@s oulation and. si*ultaneously. is turning into so*ething other than,hat it ,as during the ?classical@ era o) *odernity$ %onse9uently. it is a!out ti*e that ,e ose the 9uestion o) searching )or the Fourth Political TheoryJ111 !eyond the )irst three$Additionally. the radical reection o) the three classical theories re)lects our attitude to,ard,hat is co**on to the* all I that is. our attitude to,ard *odernisation. rogress.e'olution. de'elo*ent. and gro,th$ The A*erican scientist <regory ateson.J112 a theorist o) ethnoBsociology.cy!ernetics. and ecology. as ,ell as a sychoanalyst and a linguist. descri!ed the *onotonic rocess in his !oo" 9ind and 0ature$J118 The *onotonic rocess is the idea o) constantgro,th. constant accu*ulation. de'elo*ent. steady rogress. all acco*anied !y theincrease o) only one seci)ic indicator$ n *athe*atics. this is associated ,ith the ideas o)the *onotonic 'alue in other ,ords. the e'erBincreasing 'alue I hence. *onotonic)unctions$ #onotonic rocesses are the tye that al,ays roceed in only one direction )orexa*le. all their indicators consistently increase ,ithout cyclical )luctuations andoscillations$ Studying the *onotonic rocess at three le'els I at the le'el o) !iology +li)e-.at the le'el o) *echanics +stea* engines. internal co*!ustion engines-. and at the le'el o)social heno*ena. ateson concluded that ,hen this rocess occurs in nature. iti**ediately destroys the secies i) ,e are tal"ing a!out an arti)icial de'ice. it !rea"sdo,n i) ,e *ean a society. the society deteriorates and disaears$ The *onotonic rocess. in !iology. is inco*ati!le ,ith li)e I it is an antiB!iological heno*enon$#onotonic rocesses are co*letely a!sent )ro* nature$ All the rocesses ,hichaccu*ulate only one articular thing. or e*hasise only one articular trait. result in death$#onotonic rocesses do not exist in any !iological secies. )ro* cells to the *ost co*lexorganis*s$ As soon as this "ind o) a *onotonic rocess !egins. de'iants. giants. d,ar)s.and other )rea"s o) nature aear$ They are disa!led. inco*ati!le ,ith li)e. cannot roduceo))sring. and li)e itsel) casts the* out$ Sol'ing the ro!le* o) *onotonic rocesses ,as one o) the *ost i*ortant ro!le*s in the de'elo*ent o) stea* engines$ t turns out that the *ost i*ortant designele*ent in stea* engines is the centri)ugal go'ernor$ 6hen a stea* engine reaches cruising



seed. it is necessary to regulate the inta"e o) )uel. other,ise the *onotonic rocessinitiates. e'erything !egins to resonate. and the seed o) the engine can increaseinde)initely. causing it to exlode$ t ,as recisely this solution o) a'oiding the *onotonic rocess in *echanics that ,as the rincial theoretical. *athe*atical. hysical. andengineering ro!le* during the early stage o) industrialisation$ t turns out that the

*onotonic rocess is not only inco*ati!le ,ith li)e. !ut also ,ith the roer )unctioningo) a *echanical de'ice$ The tas" o) designing a de'ice *ust a'oid the *onotonic rocess.that is. it *ust re'ent oneBdi*ensional rogress. e'olution. de'elo*ent. and the lace*ent o) gro,th into a closed cycle$

y analysing sociology. ateson sho,ed that there are no *onotonic rocesses inreal societies$ #onotonic rocesses. such as oulation gro,th. in *ost cases led to ,ars.,hich then reduced the oulation$ n our society today ,e see an unrecedented le'el o)technological rogress along ,ith un!elie'a!le *oral degradation$ ) ,e loo" at all this e'idence ,ithout the e'olutionary !ias. then ,e ,ill realise that*onotonic rocesses exist only in eole@s *inds in other ,ords. they are urelyideological *odels$ ateson de*onstrated that they do not exist in !iological. *echanical.or social reality$ #arcel #auss.J11: a ,ellB"no,n French sociologist. criticised the *onotonic rocess as ,ell$ n the !oo" he coBauthored. 'acri%ice/ 6ts 0ature and Functions[==<] andesecially in his essay. The +i%t .J11= he sho,ed that traditional societies aid greatattention to the ritual destruction. or sacri)ice. o) surlus goods$ The surlus ,as seen asexcessi'e. likho.J11> and usurious$ ikho ersoni)ies e'il. usury is the interest charged on !orro,ed caital. and excess is that ,hich is o!tained !eyond one@s needs$ For instance.surlus cros ,ere seen as disastrous in traditional society$ The ancient ,orld'ie, ,as !ased on the !elie) that an increase in one area translates into a decrease in another$There)ore. a surlus had to !e destroyed as soon as ossi!le$ For this urose. theco**unity either organised a )east. consu*ing all the additional )ood until they cho"ed. orelse ga'e it to the gods in the )or* o) a sacri)ice. ga'e it out to the needy. or destroyed it$This is the origin o) a secial ritual. the otlatch.J11 ,hich !rings a!out the deli!erategi)ting or destruction o) excess ersonal roerty$ #arcel #auss ro'ed that the !elie) in the destructi'eness o) *onotonic rocesseslies at the )oundations o) hu*an sociality$ The society re*ains strong only through thereection o) the *onotonic rocess. and !y turning gro,th into a cycle$ X*ile Dur"hei*. Pitiri* Soro"in. and <eorges <ur'itch. the greatest sociologistso) the T,entieth century. in essence the classicists o) sociological thought. argued thatsocial rogress does not exist. in contrast to the (ineteenthBcentury sociologists. such asAuguste %o*te or 5er!ert Sencer$ Progress is not an o!ecti'e social heno*enon. !utrather. an arti)icial concet. a "ind o) scienti)ically )or*ulated *yth$ 6hen ,e studysocieties. ,e can only sea" o) the di))erent tyes thereo)$ There is no general criterion todeter*ine ,hich is *ore de'eloed. and ,hich is less so$ Lucien LN'yBrWhlJ11Catte*ted to ro'e that sa'ages thin" reBlogically. ,hile *odern hu*ans use logic$J1205o,e'er. %laude LN'iBStraussJ121 de*onstratedJ122 that sa'ages thin" in the sa*e ,aythat ,e do. only their taxono*y is !uilt di))erently. so they do not ha'e ?less@ logic than ,edo erhas e'en *ore so. and they thin" in a *ore re)ined *anner$

As )or the hases o) social de'elo*ent. the greatest A*erican culturalanthroologist. FranH oas.J128 and his )ollo,ers. as ,ell as %laude Le'iBStrauss and hisschool. ro'ed that ,e cannot loo" at *odern hu*ans as !eing e'ol'ed )ro* ?archaic@ and



?ri*iti'e@ tri!es ,ithin the )ra*e,or" o) anthroology$ Pri*iti'es and ri*iti'e societiesare si*ly di))erent eole and di))erent societies$ #odern hu*ans are one grou. andarchaic hu*ans another$ ut. they are eole. too. no ,orse than ,e are$ They are not anunderde'eloed 'ersion o) us$ They ha'e di))erent children. ,ho do not "no, *yths and)airy tales. since they are not taught the*. in contrast to our children$ The adults are also

di))erent their adults do "no, the *yths. ,hereas ours do not !elie'e in the*$ 8ur adults.our so!er and ractical society. are *ore si*ilar to their children$ The adults in ri*iti'etri!es are caa!le o) telling *ythological stories. sincerely !elie'e in the*. and "no, thatthey e*!ody the )eats o) their ancestors and their sirits in their o,n li'es. *a"ing nodistinction !et,een the*$ n contrast. the children o) ri*iti'e societies are characterised !y cynicis*. rag*atis*. sceticis*. and the desire to attri!ute e'erything to *aterialcauses$ This does not *ean that *odern societies ha'e gro,n )ro* the state o) ri*iti'is*and suerseded it it is ust that ,e ha'e con)igured our society di))erently. neither !etter or,orse. and !uilt it uon other )oundations and other 'alues$ 6ith regard to cultural studies and hilosohy. (i"olai Danile's"y.J12: Os,aldSengler. %arl Sch*itt. Ernst 3Wnger.J12; #artin 5eidegger. and Arnold Toyn!eeJ12=sho,ed that all the rocesses in the history o) hilosohy and the history o) culture are acyclical heno*enon$ The Russian historian Le' <u*ile' also suggested this in his 'ersiono) cyclical history. ,hich he exlained in his )a*ous theory o) assionarity$J12> They allac"no,ledge that there is de'elo*ent. !ut that there is also decline$ Those ,ho lace !etson there !eing only gro,th and de'elo*ent act against all nor*s o) history. against allsociological la,s. and against the logic o) li)e$ Such unidirectional *odernisation. suchgro,th. such de'elo*ent. and such rogress do not exist$

Piotr SHto*"a. a conte*orary Polish sociologist. statedJ12 that. in ter*s o)ho, rogress ,as 'ie,ed. the there ,as a change in the hu*anities$ n the (ineteenthcentury. e'eryone !elie'ed that rogress existed. and that it ,as the rincial axio* and ascienti)ic criterion$ ut. i) ,e exa*ine the aradig*s o) the T,entieth century in thehu*anities and the natural sciences. then ,e ,ill see that al*ost e'eryone reected the*no one is guided !y it any longer$ (o,adays. the aradig* o) rogress is considered al*ostantiscienti)ic$ t is inco*ati!le ,ith the criteria o) conte*orary science. ust as it isinco*ati!le ,ith the criteria o) hu*anis* and tolerance$ Any idea o) rogress is. in itsel).a 'eiled or direct racis*. asserting that ?our@ culture. )or instance. the ?6hite culture@ orA*erican culture. is o) higher 'alue than ?your@ culture. such as the culture o) A)ricans.#usli*s. ra9is. or A)ghans$ As soon as ,e say that the A*erican or the Russian culture is !etter than that o) the %hu"chiJ12C or the inha!itants o) the (orthern %aucasus. ,e act li"eracists$ And this is inco*ati!le ,ith !oth science and ,ith a !asic resect to,ard di))erentethnicities$ T,entiethBcentury science uses cyclicality as a scienti)ic criterion. or. according toSHto*"a. ,e ha'e *o'ed )ro* the aradig* o) e'olution. *odernisation. andde'elo*ent to the aradig* o) crisis and catastrohes$ This *eans that all rocesses I innature. society. and technology I *ust !e concei'ed as relati'e. re'ersi!le. and cyclical$This is the *ost i*ortant oint$ n ter*s o) its *ethodological !ase. the Fourth Political Theory *ust !e rooted inthe )unda*ental reection o) the *onotonic rocess$ That is to say. the Fourth PoliticalTheory *ust assert that the *onotonic rocess is unscienti)ic. inade9uate. a*oral. anduntrue as its )uture axio* +,ithout seci)ying ho, the *onotonic rocess *ust !ereected-$ And. e'erything that aeals to the *onotonic rocess and its 'ariations. such as



de'elo*ent. e'olution. and *odernisation. should. at the 'ery least. !e understood inter*s o) the cyclical *ode$ nstead o) the ideas o) the *onotonic rocess. rogress. and*odernisation. ,e *ust endorse other slogans directed to,ard li)e. reetition. the reser'ation o) that ,hich is o) 'alue and changing that ,hich should !e changed$ nstead o) al,ays loo"ing )or *odernisation and gro,th. ,e should instead orient

oursel'es in the direction o) !alance. adata!ility. and har*ony$ nstead o) desiring to *o'eu,ard and )or,ard. ,e *ust adat to that ,hich exists. to understand ,here ,e are. andto har*onise socioBolitical rocesses$ And. *ost i*ortant. instead o) gro,th. rogress. and de'elo*ent. there is li%e$A)ter all. there has !een no roo) o))ered yet to sho, that li)e is lin"ed to gro,th$ This ,asthe *yth o) the (ineteenth century$ Li)e. in contrast. is connected to the eternal return$ nthe end. e'en (ietHsche incororated his idea o) the ,ill to o,er into the concet o)eternal return$J180 The 'ery logic o) li)e to ,hich (ietHsche ,as dedicated told hi* that i)there is gro,th in li)e. the AollonianJ181 *o'e*ent to,ard the logos. then the !alance o) the nocturnal Dionysian ,orld exists as ,ell$ And Aollo is not ust oosed to Dionysusthey complement each other$ 5al) o) the cycle constitutes *odernisation. ,hile the otherhal) I decline ,hen one hal) )aces u. the other hal) )aces do,n$ There is no li)e ,ithoutdeath$ eingBto,ardsBdeath. care)ul attention to death. to the )li side o) the shere o)eing. as 5eidegger ,rote. is not a struggle ,ith li)e. !ut. rather. its glori)ication and its)oundation$ 6e *ust ut an end to anti9uated olitical ideologies and theories$ ) ,e ha'e trulyreected #arxis* and )ascis*. then ,hat re*ains is to reect li!eralis*$ Li!eralis* is ane9ually outdated. cruel. *isanthroic ideology li"e the t,o re'ious ones$ The ter*?li!eralis*@ should !e e9uated ,ith the ter*s )ascis* and %o**unis*$ Li!eralis* isresonsi!le )or no )e,er historic cri*es than )ascis* +Ausch,itH- and %o**unis* +the</Lag-J182 it is resonsi!le )or sla'ery. the destruction o) the (ati'e A*ericans in the/nited States. )or 5iroshi*a and (agasa"i. )or the aggression in Ser!ia. ra9. andA)ghanistan. )or the de'astation and the econo*ic exloitation o) *illions o) eole on the lanet. and )or the igno!le and cynical lies ,hich ,hite,ash this history$ ut. *ost i*ortant. ,e *ust reect the !ase uon ,hich these three ideologiesstand the *onotonic rocess in all its )or*s. that is. e'olution. gro,th. *odernisation. rogress. de'elo*ent. and all that ,hich see*ed scienti)ic in the (ineteenth century !ut,as exosed as unscienti)ic in the T,entieth century$ 6e *ust also a!andon the hilosohy o) de'elo*ent and roose the )ollo,ingslogan li)e is *ore i*ortant than gro,th$ nstead o) the ideology o) de'elo*ent. ,e*ust lace our !ets on the ideology o) conser'atis* and conser'ation$ 5o,e'er. ,e notonly re9uire conser'atis* in our daily li'es. !ut also hilosohical conser'atis*$ 6e needthe hilosohy o) conser'atis*$ Loo"ing to,ard the )uture o) the Russian olitical syste*.i) it is going to !e !ased on *onotonic rocesses. then it is doo*ed to )ailure$ (o sta!ility,ill e'er co*e )ro* a ne, round o) unidirectional gro,th deri'ed )ro* energy rices. realestate. stoc"s. and so on. nor )ro* the gro,th o) glo!al econo*y as a ,hole$ ) this illusion ersists. then it *ay !eco*e )atal )or our country$ Today. ,e )ind oursel'es in a transitional state$ 6e "no, roughly ,hat ,e are*o'ing a,ay %rom. !ut do not "no, ,hat ,e are *o'ing to$ard $ ) ,e head to,ard that,hich directly or indirectly i*lies the !elie) in any *onotonic rocess. then ,e ,ill reacha dead end$ The Fourth Political Theory *ust ta"e a ste to,ard the )or*ulation o) a coherent



criti9ue o) the *onotonic rocess$ t *ust de'elo an alternati'e *odel o) a conser'ati'e)uture. a conser'ati'e to*orro,. !ased on the rinciles o) 'itality. roots. constants. andeternity$ A)ter all. as Arthur #oeller 'an den ruc" once said. ?%onser'atis* has eternity onits side$@J188



= The &e2ersibility of Time

Three olitical theories ha'e !een roduced )ro* the ideology o) *odernity$ They,ere all !ased on the toograhy o) rogress$ Progress i*licates the irre'ersi!ility o) ti*e.a )or,ardB*o'ing and redeter*ined e'olutionary rocess$ Progress is !oth anorthogenetic and a *onotonic rocess$ ne'ita!ly. all three are !ased on 5egel@s hilosohy$ A)ter 5egel. the *eaning o) history !eca*e understood in ter*s o) theA!solute SiritJ18: !eco*ing estranged )ro* itsel). assu*ing a )or* as the dialectic rocess o) history. e'entually !eco*ing a tye o) enlightened *onarchy$ #arx acceted this toograhy. and a)ter Alexandre KoQ'e and Francis Fu"uya*a.li!eral thin"ers ha'e acceted it as ,ell$ n the )ra*e,or" o) (ational Socialis*.5egelianis* ,as externalised in the concet o) a Final Reich. ,ith the Third Reich as thethird "ingdo* o) 3oachi* o) Fiore.J18; and in the concet o) Social Dar,inis*. ,here thetheory o) natural selection has !een adated to aly to society and races$ SocialDar,inis* is also inherent in Sencer@s li!eralis*$ Each o) these three ideologies o)*odernity is !ased on the re*ises o) the irre'ersi!ility o) ti*e and o) unidirectionalhistory$ They i*licitly ac"no,ledge the totalising i*erati'e o) *odernisation$#odernisation can !e li!eral. %o**unist. or )ascist$ An exa*le o) the e))ecti'eness o))ascist *odernisation ,ould !e the success. ho,e'er !rutal. o) 5itler@s industrial*odernisation o) <er*any in the 1C80s$ The Fourth Political Theory is an un*odern theory$ As runo LatourJ18= has said.?6e ha'e ne'er !een conte*orary@$ The theoretical axio*s o) *odernity are har*less !ecause they cannot !e realised in reality$ n ractice. they are er*anently and 'erysectacularly sel)Bnegating$ The Fourth Political Theory co*letely discards the idea o) theirre'ersi!ility o) history$ This idea ,as interesting in a theoretical sense. as su!stantiated !y<eorges Du*NHil.J18> ,ith his antiBeuhe*eris*.J18 and <il!ert Durand$J18C ha'e,ritten re'iously a!out sociology and the *orhology o) ti*e in *y !oo"s Post,

philosophy. 'ociology o% the 6magination. and 'ociology o% ussian 'ociety$ Ti*e is asocial heno*enon its structures do not deend uon their o!ecti'es. !ut uon thedo*ination o) social aradig*s. !ecause the o!ect is assigned !y society itsel)$ n *odernsociety. ti*e is seen as irre'ersi!le. rogressi'e and unidirectional$ ut this is notnecessarily true inside societies that do not accet *odernity$ n so*e societies. ,hich lac"a strict. *odern concetion o) ti*e. cyclic and e'en regressi'e concetions o) ti*e exist$There)ore. olitical history is considered in the context o) the toograhy o) luralconcetions o) ti*e )or the Fourth Political Theory$ There are as *any concetions o) ti*eas there are societies$ The Fourth Political Theory does not ust discard rogress and *odernisation.ho,e'er$ This theory conte*lates rogress and *odernisation relati'e to. and inti*atelyconnected ,ith. current historical. social and olitical se*antic occasions" as inoccasionalist theory$J1:0 Progress and *odernisation are real. !ut relati'e. not a!solute$



6hat is *eant are seci)ied stages. !ut not the a!solute trend o) history$ This is ,hy theFourth Political Theory suggests an alternati'e 'ersion o) olitical history !ased onsyste*atised occasionalis*$ %arl Sch*itt ,as 'ery close to this in his ,or"$ Fernandraudel and the Xcole des Annales ha'e also !een insired !y this in their ,riting$ n thediscussion o) the olitical trans)or*ation o) society. ,e lace the* in their seci)ic

se*antic context history. religion. hilosohy. econo*ics. and culture. ,ith its ethnic andethnicBsociological seci)ics considered$ This de*ands a ne, classi)ication o) social and olitical trans)or*ation$ 6e ac"no,ledge these trans)or*ations. !ut ,e do not lace the*onto a !roadB!ased scale that could !e the co**on ?destiny@ )or all societies$ This gi'es us olitical luralis*$ The Fourth Political Theory uses a societallyBdeendent concetion o) re'ersi!leti*e$ n the context o) *odernity. turning !ac" )ro* so*e oint in history to a re'ious oneis i*ossi!le$ ut it is ossi!le in the context o) Fourth Political Theory$ erdyae'@s idea o) the ?(e, #iddle Ages@J1:1 is 9uite alica!le$ Societies can !e 'ariously !uilt andtrans)or*ed$ The exerience o) the 1CC0s is 9uite de*onstrati'e o) this eole in theSo'iet /nion ,ere sure that socialis* ,ould roceed )ro* caitalis*. not 'ice 'ersa$ utin the 1CC0s they sa, the oosite caitalis* )ollo,ing socialis*$ t is 9uite ossi!le thatRussia could yet see )eudalis*. or e'en a sla'eBo,ning society. or erhas a %o**unist or ri*ordial society e*erge a)ter that$ Those ,ho laugh at this are the cati'es o) the *odernand its hynosis$ 5a'ing ac"no,ledged the re'ersi!ility o) olitical and historical ti*e. ,eha'e arri'ed at a ne, luralist ointBo)B'ie, )or olitical science. and ,e ha'e reached thead'anced ersecti'e necessary )or ideological construction$

The Fourth Political Theory constructs. and reconstructs. society !ehind *odernaxio*s$ That is ,hy the ele*ents o) the di))erent olitical )or*s can !e used in the FourthPolitical Theory ,ithout any connection to the ti*e scale$ There are no stages and eochs. !ut only reBconcets and concets$ n this context. theological constructions. anti9uity.caste and other asects o) traditional society are only so*e o) the ossi!le 'ariants along,ith socialis*. Keynesian theory.J1:2 )ree *ar"ets. arlia*entary de*ocracy. or?nationalis*@$ They are si*ly )or*s. !ut they ,ould not !e related to an i*liedtoograhy o) ?o!ecti'e historical ti*e@$ There is no such thing ) ti*e is ?historical@. it iscannot ?o!ecti'e@$ (asein says the sa*e$ (asein is the su!ect o) the Fourth PoliticalTheory$ (asein can !e reco'ered !y the re)ine*ent o) the existential truth deri'ed )ro* theontological suerstructure o) society$ (asein is so*ething that institutionaliHes ti*e$Durand institutionalises ti*e !y Traiectum[=4)] in his toograhy$ Traiectu*V (asein is nota )unction o) ti*e. !ut ti*e is a )unction o) Traiectu*V (asein. This is ,hy ti*e isso*ething that is institutionalised !y olitics in the context o) the Fourth Political Theory$Ti*e is a olitical category$ Political time is a pre,concept o% a political %orm.

The Fourth Political Theory has oened a uni9ue ersecti'e i) ,e co*rehend the rincile o) the re'ersi!ility o) ti*e. ,e are not only a!le to co*ose the roect o) a )uturesociety. !ut ,e ,ill also !e a!le to co*ose a ,hole range o) roects o) di))erent )uturesocieties I thus ,e ,ould !e a!le to suggest so*e nonBlinear strategies )or a ne,institutionalisation o) the ,orld$

The Fourth Political Theory is not an in'itation to a return to traditional society i$e$.it is not conser'atis* in the con'entional sense$ There are *any characteristics o) ourchronological ast ,hich are leasant. and *any ,hich are not$ Si*ilarly. the )or*s o)traditional society can also !e distinguished )ro* each other$ Finally. the ethnic andsociological *atrixes. and the contexts o) di))erent conte*orary societies. are also



di))erent )ro* each other$ There)ore. the Fourth Political Theory should not i*oseanything on anyone$ Adherents o) the Fourth Political Theory should act ste !y ste i) ,esi*ly argue the re'ersi!ility o) ti*e and (asein as the su!ects o) our theory. that ,ould !e the )irst and ri*ary ste$ 6e ,ould thus )ree oursel'es to de'elo the reBconcets$ 6ecan de)ine se'eral reBconcets ,ith regards to the re'ersi!ility o) ti*e and

(aseinVTraiectu*. and there)ore ,e can de)ine se'eral olitical concets o) ti*e$ And eacho) the* can !e lugged into the current olitical roect. according to the rinciles o) theFourth Political Theory$



5 >lobal Transition an! its nemies

The %orl! ?r!er 3uestione!

The (e, 6orld Order +(6O- as a concet ,as oularised at a concrete historical*o*ent I na*ely. ,hen the %old 6ar ended in the late 1C0s and genuine glo!alcooeration !et,een the /nited States and So'iet /nion ,as considered not only ossi!le. !ut 'ery ro!a!le$ The !asis o) the (6O ,as resu*a!ly a roduct o) con'ergence theory. redicting the synthesis o) the So'iet socialist and 6estern caitalist olitical )or*s andclose cooeration o) the So'iet /nion and /SA in the case o) regional issues I )orexa*le. in the )irst <ul) 6ar at the !eginning o) 1CC1$ 5o,e'er. as the So'iet /nioncollased soon a)ter this. the roect o) a (6O ,as naturally set aside and )orgotten$ A)ter 1CC1. the (e, 6orld Order ,as considered to !e so*ething under )or*ation !e)ore our 'ery eyes I a uniolar ,orld led !y the oen glo!al hege*ony o) the /SA$ t is,ellBdescri!ed in Fu"uya*a@s utoian ,or". The -nd o% ;istory and the ast 9an$ This,orld order ignored all other oles o) o,er excet the /SA and its allies. including6estern Euroe and 3aan$ t ,as concei'ed as a uni'ersalisation o) )ree *ar"etecono*ics. olitical de*ocracy. and the ideology o) hu*an rights. all o) ,hich ,ereassu*ed to !e art o) a glo!al syste* that ,ould !e acceted !y all countries in the ,orld$

S"etics. ho,e'er. thought that this ,as rather illusionary and that the di))erences !et,een countries and eoles ,ould reaear in other )or*s. )or exa*le. in Sa*uel5untington@s in)a*ous ?clash o) ci'ilisations@ thesis. or in ethnic or religious con)licts$So*e exerts. in articular 3ohn #earshei*er.J1:: regarded uniolarity not as a ?roer@,orld order !ut. rather. as ?uniolar *o*entu*@$ n any case. ,hat is 9uestioned in all these roects is the existing order o) nationBstates and national so'ereignty$ The 6esthalian syste*J1:; no longer corresonds to thecurrent glo!al !alance o) o,ers$ (e, actors o) transBnational and su!Bnational scale area))ir*ing their gro,ing i*ortance. and it is e'ident that the ,orld is in need o) a ne, aradig* in international relations$ There)ore. the conte*orary ,orld as ,e ha'e it today cannot !e regarded as a roerlyBrealised (6O$ There is no de)initi'e ,orld order o) any "ind$ 6hat ,e ha'einstead is the transition )ro* the ,orld order ,e "ne, in the T,entieth century to so*eother aradig* ,hose )eatures are yet to !e )ully de)ined$ 6ill the )uture really !e glo!al7Or ,ill regionalist tendencies do*inate7 6ill there !e one uni9ue ,orld order7 Or ,illthere instead !e 'arious local or regional orders7 Or. erhas. ,ill ,e ha'e to deal ,ithglo!al chaos7 t is not yet clear$ The transition is not acco*lished$ 6e are li'ing in the*iddle o) it$ ) the glo!al elite. and )irst o) all the A*erican olitical and econo*ic elite. has aclear 'ision o) the )uture. ,hich is rather dou!t)ul. circu*stances *ay and can re'ent its



realisation in ractice$ ). ho,e'er. the glo!al elite lac" a consensual roect. the issue !eco*es *uch *ore co*licated$ So only the )act o) transition to so*e ne, aradig* is certain$ The aradig* assuch is. to the contrary. 9uite uncertain$

%orl! ?r!er from the American Point-of-@ie"

The osition o) the /nited States during this shi)t is a!solutely assured !ut its longBter* )uture is under 9uestion$ The /S is no, undergoing a test o) its glo!al i*erial ruleand has to deal ,ith *any challenges. so*e o) the* 9uite ne, and original$This could roceed in three di))erent ,ays 1- %reation o) an A*erican E*ire stricto sensu[=4?] ,ith a consolidated andtechnically and socially de'eloed central area. or i*erial core. ,ith the erihery "etdi'ided and )rag*ented in a state o) er*anent unrest. !ordering chaos$ Theneoconser'ati'es. it ,ould see*. are in )a'our o) such a attern$ 2- %reation o) a *ultilateral uniolarity ,here the /SA ,ould cooerate ,ith other )riendly o,ers +%anada. Euroe. Australia. 3aan. srael. Ara! allies. and ossi!ly othercountries- in sol'ing regional ro!le*s and utting ressure on ?rogue states@ +such as ran.GeneHuela. elarus. or (orth Korea-. or re'enting other o,ers )ro* achie'ing regionalindeendence and hege*ony +%hina. Russia. etc$-$ t ,ould see* that the De*ocrats andPresident O!a*a are inclined to this 'ision$ 8- Pro*otion o) accelerated glo!alisation ,ith the creation o) a ,orld go'ern*entand s,i)t deBso'ereignisation o) nationBstates in )a'our o) the creation o) a ?/nited States@o) the ,orld ruled !y the glo!al elite on legal ter*s +)or exa*le. the %FR roectreresented !y the strategy o) <eorge Soros and his )oundations-$J1:> The %olourRe'olutionsJ1: are 'ie,ed here as the *ost e))ecti'e ,eaon o) desta!ilising and )inallydestroying states-$

The /S o)ten see*s to !e si*ultaneously ro*oting all three strategies at the sa*eti*e. as art o) a *ultiB'ector )oreign olicy$ These three strategic directions o) the /SAcreate the glo!al context in international relations. the /SA !eing the "ey actor on a glo!alscale$ eyond the e'ident di))erences !et,een these three i*ages o) the )uture. they ha'eso*e essential oints in co**on$ n any case. the /SA is interested in a))ir*ing itsstrategic. econo*ic and olitical do*ination in strengthening its control o) other glo!alactors and in ,ea"ening the* in the gradual or accelerated deBso'ereignisation o) ,hat areno, *ore or less indeendent states and in the ro*otion o) suosedly ?uni'ersal@ 'aluesre)lecting the 'alues o) the 6estern ,orld. i$e$ li!eral de*ocracy. arlia*entarianis*. )ree*ar"ets. hu*ans rights. and so on$

There)ore ,e )ace a conte*orary ,orld in a strong and see*ingly er*anentgeoolitical arrange*ent ,here the /S is the core. and ,here the rays or so"es o) itsin)luence +strategic. econo*ic. olitical. technological. in)or*ational and so on- er*eateall the rest o) the ,orld. deending on the strength o) the societal ,illo) the 'ariouscountries. as ,ell as ethnic and religious grous. to accet or reect it$ t is a "ind o)i*erial net,or" oerating on a lanetary scale$



This /SBcentric glo!al geoolitical arrange*ent can !e descri!ed on se'eraldi))erent le'els istorically$ The /SA considers itsel) to !e the logical conclusion and ea" o)6estern ci'ilisation$ At one ti*e. this ,as resented in ter*s o) the ?#ani)est Destiny@ o)A*erica.J1:C and then in ter*s o) the #onroe Doctrine$J1;0 (o, they sea" in ter*s o)

en)orce*ent o) ?uni'ersal@ hu*an rights nor*s. ro*otion o) de*ocracy. technology. )ree*ar"et institutions and so on$ ut in essence. ,e are si*ly dealing ,ith an udated'ersion and continuation o) a 6estern uni'ersalis* that has !een assed do,n )ro* theRo*an E*ire. #edie'al %hristianity. *odernity in ter*s o) the Enlighten*ent andcolonisation. u to the resentBday heno*ena o) ost*odernis* and ultraBindi'idualis*$5istory is considered to !e a uni'ocal and *onotone rocess o) technological and social rogress. the ath o) the gro,ing li!eration o) indi'iduals )ro* all "inds o) collecti'eidentities$ Tradition and conser'atis* are thus regarded as o!stacles to )reedo* and should !e reected$ The /SA is in the 'anguard o) this historical rogress. and has the right.o!ligation. and historical *ission to *o'e history )urther and )urther along this ath$ Thehistorical existence o) the /S coincides ,ith the course o) hu*an history$ So. ?A*erican@*eans ?uni'ersal@$ The other cultures either ha'e an A*erican )uture or no )uture at all$ Politically$ There are 'ery i*ortant trends in glo!al olitics that de)ine thetransition$ The ea" o) the olitical thought o) *odernity ,as the 'ictory o) li!eralis* o'erthe alternati'e olitical doctrines o) *odernity )ascis* and socialis*$ Li!eralis* has goneglo!al and !eco*e the only ossi!le olitical syste*$ t is no, rogressing )urther to,ardsa ost*odern and ostBindi'idual concet o) olitics. generally descri!ed as ostBhu*anis*$ The /SA again lays the "ey role in it$ The )or* o) olitics ro*oted glo!ally !y the /SA is li!eral de*ocracy$ The /S suorts the glo!alisation o) li!eralis*. thus rearing the next ste to olitical ost*odernity as descri!ed in -mpire. the )a*ous !oo" !y 5ardt and (egri$J1;1 There re*ains so*e distance !et,een li!eral ultraBindi'idualis*and roerly ost*odern ostBhu*anis*. ro*oting cy!ernetics. genetic *odi)ication.cloning and chi*eras$ J1;2ut the ,orld@s erihery still )aces the uni'ersalising rocess I the accelerated destruction o) all holistic social entities. and the )rag*entation andato*isation o) society. including 'ia technology +the nternet. *o!ile hones. socialnet,or"s-. ,here the rincial actor is strictly the indi'idual. di'orced )ro* any organicand collecti'e social context$

An i*ortant testi*ony to the dual use o) the ro*otion o) de*ocracy has !eenexlicitly descri!ed in an article !y the A*erican *ilitary and olitical exert. Stehen R$#ann.J1;8 ,ho a))ir*ed that de*ocracy can ,or" as a sel)Bgenerating 'irus.strengthening existing and historically rie de*ocratic societies. !ut destroying and causingtraditional societies that are not reared )or it to descend into chaos$ So de*ocracy isthought to !e an e))ecti'e ,eaon to create chaos and to go'ern the dissiating ,orldcultures )ro* the core. e*ulating and installing the de*ocratic codex e'ery,here$E'idence o) this rocess can !e seen in the chaotic a)ter*ath o) the heady e'ents o) the soBcalled ?Ara! Sring@$ A)ter acco*lishing the )ull )rag*entation o) these societies intoindi'idualisation and ato*isation. the second hase ,ill !egin the ine'ita!le di'ision anddissolution o) the indi'idual hu*an itsel) 'ia technology and genetic tin"ering to create a?osthu*anity@$ This ?ostBolitics@ can !e seen as the last horiHon o) olitical )uturis*$ *!eolo)ically$ There is a tendency )or the /S to increasingly lin" ideology and olitics in their relations ,ith the erihery$ n earlier ti*es. A*erican )oreign olicy actedon the !asis o) ure rag*atic realis*$ ) the regi*es ,ere roBA*erican. they ,ere



tolerated ,ithout regard )or their ideological rinciles$ The longstanding /SBSaudiAra!ian alliance reresents the er)ect exa*le o) this realist )oreign olicy in ractice$Thus. so*e )eatures o) this schiHohrenic and dual *orality ,ere ideologically acceted$5o,e'er. t see*s that recently the /S has !egun to try to deeen its ro*otion o)de*ocracy. suorting oular re'olts in Egyt and Tunisia desite the )act that their

leaders ,ere trusted allies o) the /S as ,ell as corrut dictators$ The dou!le standards inthe /S@s olitical ideology are slo,ly 'anishing. and the deeening o) the ro*otion o)de*ocracy rogresses$ The cli*ax ,ill !e reached in the case o) ro!a!le unrest in SaudiAra!ia$ 6hen this haens. this ideological roBde*ocracy stance ,ill !e tested in olitically di))icult and incon'enient circu*stances$ conomically$ The /S econo*y is challenged !y %hinese gro,th. energy securityand scarcity. criling de!t and !udget de)icits. and the critical di'ergence anddisroortion !et,een the )inancial sector and the Hone o) real industry$ The o'ergro,th. or !u!!le. o) the A*erican )inancial institutions and the delocalisation o) industry ha'ecreated a discontinuity !et,een the shere o) *oney and the shere o) the classicalcaitalist !alance o) industrial suly and consu*er de*ands$ This ,as the *ain cause o)the )inancial crisis o) 200$ The %hinese olitical econo*y is trying to reesta!lish itsindeendence )ro* /S glo!al hege*ony and *ay !eco*e the *ain )actor o) econo*icco*etition$ The control that Russia. ran. GeneHuela and so*e other relati'ely indeendentcountries ha'e o'er large reser'oirs o) the ,orld@s re*aining natural resources uts a li*iton A*erican econo*ic in)luence$ The econo*y o) the E/ and 3aanese econo*ic otentialreresent t,o ossi!le oles o) econo*ic co*etition to the /S inside the econo*ic andstrategic )ra*e,or" o) the 6est$ The /SA atte*ts to sol'e these ro!le*s using not only urely econo*icinstru*ents. !ut also olitical and. at ti*es. *ilitary o,er as ,ell$ 6e could thus interretthe in'asion and occuations o) ra9 and A)ghanistan. as ,ell as the inter'entions !otho'ert and co'ert in Li!ya. ran and Syria )ro* a geoecono*ic and geoolitical ersecti'e$Pro*otion o) do*estic olitical oosition and insurgents in Russia. ran and %hina areanother. si*ilar *ethod to,ards the sa*e goal$ ut these are only technical solutions$ The*ain challenge is ho, to organise the ostB*odern and )inanceBcentric econo*y aroundcontinuing gro,th. o'erco*ing the ,idening critical ga !et,een the real econo*y and the)inancial sector ,hose logic and sel)Binterest !eco*e *ore and *ore autono*ous$

t has !een asserted that the /SA is the *ain and asy**etric actor in the centre o)the resent transition state o) ,orld a))airs$ As GNdrineJ1;: has noted. this actor is a truehyero,er. and the resent geoolitical arrange*ent that includes all the le'els andnet,or"s exa*ined a!o'e is structured around this A*erican core$ The 9uestion then raisedis is this actor )ully conscious o) ,hat it does and does it )ully understand ,hat it ,illo!tain at the end. that is. ,hich )or* o) international syste* or ,orld order is it going toesta!lish7 Oinions on this i*ortant oint are di'ided$ The neocons roclai*ing the (e,A*erican %enturyJ1;; are oti*istic as to the )uture A*erican E*ire. !ut in their case itis o!'ious that they ha'e a clear. i) not necessarily realistic. 'ision o) an A*ericanBdo*inated )uture$ n this case. the ,orld order ,ill !e an A*erican i*erial order !ased onuniolar geoolitics$ At least theoretically. it has one redee*ing oint it is clear and honesta!out its goals and intentions$ The *ultilateralists are *ore cautious. and insist on the necessity o) in'iting theother regional o,ers to share the !urden o) glo!al hege*ony ,ith the /SA$ t is o!'iousthat only societies si*ilar to the /SA can !e artners. so the success o) the ro*otion o)



de*ocracy !eco*es an essential )eature$ The *ultilateralists act not only in the na*e o) the/SA !ut also in the na*e o) the 6est. ,hose 'alues are. or *ust !e *ade. uni'ersal$ Their'ision o) a )uture ,orld order dictated !y glo!al de*ocracy. !ut led !y the /S. is )oggierand not as clearly de)ined as the neocons@ A*erican E*ire$ E'en haHier is the extre*e 'ision o) glo!al go'ernance en'isaged !y ro*oters o)

accelerated glo!alisation$ t *ight !e ossi!le to e))ecti'ely o'erthro, the existing order o)so'ereign nationBstates. !ut in *any cases. this ,ill only oen the door to *ore archaic.local. religious or ethnic )orces and con)licts$ The 'ision o) a single oen and. !y necessity.largely ho*ogenous society enco*assing the Earth is so )antastic and utoian that it is*uch easier to i*agine the total chaos o) 5o!!es@ ?,ar o) all against all@J1;= in the stateo) nature o) a ,orld ,ithout states$ The 'isions o) ossi!le )uture ,orld orders )ro* the ersecti'e o) the /S and the6est di))ers a*ong co*eting )actions o) A*erican elites. ideologists. and decisionB*a"ers$ The *ost conse9uent and ,ellBde)ined strategy. the neocons@ uniolar ,orld order.is at the sa*e ti*e *ore ethnocentric. oenly i*erialistic and hege*onic$ The other t,o'ersions are *uch *ore di*ly concei'ed and uncertain$ Thus. it is as li"ely they could leadto an increase in glo!al disorder. as order$ Richard 5aassJ1;> has ter*ed the aradig*s o)an international syste* according to these t,o 'isions as !eing characterised !y ?nonB olarity@$

So the transition in 9uestion is. in any case. A*ericanBcentric !y its nature. and theglo!al geoolitical arrange*ent is structured so that the *ain glo!al rocesses ,ould !e*oderated. orientated. directed. and so*eti*es controlled !y the uni9ue hyero,er actor er)or*ing its ,or" alone or ,ith the hel o) its 6estern allies and regional client states$

The %orl! ?r!er from the Non-American Point-of-@ie"

The A*ericanoBcentric ,orld ersecti'e descri!ed a!o'e. desite !eing the *osti*ortant and central glo!al tendency. is not the only one ossi!le$ There can !e and thereare alternati'e 'isions o) ,orld olitical architecture that can !e ta"en into consideration$There are secondary and tertiary actors that are ine'ita!le losers in the case o) the successo) the A*erican strategies the countries. states. eoles. and cultures that ,ould losee'erything. e'en their o,n identity. and gain nothing i) the /SA realised its glo!alasirations$ They are !oth *ultile and heterogeneous. and can !e groued into se'eraldi))erent categories$ The )irst category is co*osed !y the *ore or less success)ul nationBstates that arenot hay to lose their indeendence to a suranational exterior authority I not in the )or*o) oen A*erican hege*ony. nor in the 6esternBcentric )or*s o) ,orld go'ern*ent orgo'ernance. nor in the chaotic dissolution o) a )ailed international syste*$ There are *anysuch countries I )ore*ost a*ong the* are %hina. Russia. ran. and ndia. !ut it alsoincludes *any South A*erican and sla*ic states$ They do not li"e the transition at all.susecting. ,ith good reason. the ine'ita!le loss o) their so'ereignty$ So. they are inclinedto resist the *ain trends o) the glo!al A*ericanBcentric geoolitical arrange*ent or adat toit in such a *anner that it ,ould !e ossi!le to a'oid the logical conse9uences o) itssuccess. !e it 'ia an i*erialist or glo!alist strategy$ The ,ill to reser'ation o) so'ereigntyreresents the natural contradiction and oint o) resistance in the )ace o) A*ericanV6estern



hege*onic or glo!alist trends$ <enerally sea"ing. these states lac" an alternati'e 'ision o)the )uture international syste* or ,orld order. and certainly do not ha'e a uni)ied orco**on 'ision$ 6hat they all ,ant and share in co**on is a desire to reser'e theinternational status 9uo as enshrined in the /( %harter. and thus their o,n so'ereignty andidentity as nationBstates in their resent )or*. adusting and *odernising the* as an internal

and so'ereign rocess as necessary$A*ong this grou o) nationBstates see"ing to reser'e their so'ereignty in the )aceo) /SV6estern hege*onic or glo!alist strategies are 1- Those states ,ho try to adat their societies to 6estern standards and to "ee)riendly relations ,ith the 6est and the /SA. !ut to a'oid direct and total deBso'ereignisation this includes ndia. Tur"ey. raHil. and u to a certain oint Russia andKaHa"hstan$ 2- Those states ,ho are ready to cooerate ,ith the /SA. !ut under the conditiono) nonBinter)erence in their do*estic a))airs. such as Saudi Ara!ia and Pa"istan$ 8- Those states ,ho. ,hile cooerating ,ith the /SA. strictly o!ser'e theuni9ueness o) their society !y )iltering those ele*ents o) 6estern culture that areco*ati!le ,ith their do*estic culture )ro* those ,hich are not. and. at the sa*e ti*e.trying to use the di'idends recei'ed !y this cooeration to strengthen their nationalindeendence. such as %hina. and. at ti*es. Russia$ :- Those states ,ho try to oose the /SA directly. reecting 6estern 'alues.uniolarity. and /SV6estern hege*ony. including ran. GeneHuela. and (orth Korea$

5o,e'er. all o) these grous lac" an alternati'e glo!al strategy that could !esy**etrically co*ara!le ,ith A*erican 'isions o) the )uture. e'en i) ta"en ,ithoutconsensus or a clearly de)ined goal$ All these states generally act indi'idually on the ,orldstage and in their o,n direct interests$ The di))erence in )oreign olicy a*ong the* consistsonly in the a*ount o) radicalis* in their reection o) A*ericanisation$ Their osition can !ede)ined as reacti'e$ This strategy o) reacti'e oosition. 'arying )ro* reection toadatation. is so*eti*es e))ecti'e. and so*eti*es not$ n short. it o))ers no "ind o)alternate )uture 'ision$ nstead. the )uture o) the ,orld order or international syste* isconsidered as eternal conser'ation o) the status 9uo. i$e$ *odernity. nationBstates. the6esthalian syste* o) state so'ereignty. and strict interretation and reser'ation o) theexisting /( %harter and /( con)iguration$ The second category o) actors ,ho reect the transition consists o) su!Bnationalgrous. *o'e*ents. and organisations that oose A*erican do*inance o) the structures o) the glo!al geoolitical arrange*ent )or ideological. religious. andVor cultural reasons$ Thesegrous are 9uite di))erent )ro* one another and 'ary )ro* state to state$ #ost o) the* are)ounded on an interretation o) religious )aith that is inco*ati!le ,ith the secular doctrineo) A*ericanisation. 6esternisation. and glo!alisation$ ut they can also !e *oti'ated !yethnic or ideological +)or exa*le$ socialist or %o**unist- considerations or doctrines$Others *ay e'en act on regionalist grounds$

The aradox is that in the rocess o) glo!alisation. ,hich ai*s to uni'ersalise and*a"e uni)or* all articularities and collecti'e identities on the !asis o) a urely indi'idualidentity. such su!Bnational actors easily !eco*e transnational I the sa*e religions andideologies o)ten !eing resent in di))erent nations and across state !orders$ Thus. a*ongthese nonBstate actors ,e could otentially )ind so*e alternati'e 'ision o) the )uture ,orld



order or international syste* that can stand oosed to the A*ericanV6esternBled transitionand its structures$ 6e can roughly su**arise the di))erent ideas o) so*e o) the *ore i*ortant su!BnationalVtransBnational grous as )ollo,s M The *ost recognised )or* at resent is the sla*ist ,orld 'ision. ,hich asires

to,ard the utoia o) an indi'idual state !ased uon a strict interretation o) sla*ic la,. orelse a /ni'ersal %alihate ,hich ,ill !ring the entire ,orld under sla*ic rule$ This roectis as *uch oosed to the A*ericanBled transitional architecture as it is to the existingstatus 9uo o) *odern nationBstates$ Osa*a !in Laden@s Al Yaeda re*ains sy*!olic andarchetyal o) such ideas. and the attac"s ,hich !rought do,n the to,ers o) the 6orld Trade%entre in (e, or" on CV11. and ,hich are suosed to ha'e ?changed the ,orld@. are roo) o) the i*ortance o) such net,or"s and the seriousness ,ith ,hich they *ust !eta"en$

M Another such roect can !e de)ined as the transnational neoBsocialist lanreresented in the South A*erican Le)t. and ersonally !y 5ugo %hZ'eH$ This is roughly ane, 'ersion o) the #arxist criti9ue o) caitalis*. strengthened !y nationalist e*otion. and.in so*e cases. such as the aatistas and oli'ia. in ethnic senti*ents or <reen ecologicalcriti9ues$ So*e Ara! regi*es. such as the Li!yan Ara! 3a*ahiriya under <adda)i untilrecently. can !e considered in the sa*e 'ein$ The 'ision o) the )uture ,orld order is here resented as glo!al socialist re'olution roceeded !y antiBA*erican li!eration ca*aigns ine'ery country across the glo!e$ The /SV6esternBled transition is en'isioned !y this grouas an incarnation o) the classic i*erialis* criticised !y Lenin$J1;

M A third such exa*le can !e )ound in the Eurasianist +a"a *ultiolarity. <reatSaces. or <reat Po,ers- roect. roosing an alternati'e *odel o) ,orld order !ased onthe aradig* o) uni9ue ci'ilisations and <reat Po,ers$ t resuoses the creation o)di))erent transnational olitical. strategic. and econo*ic entities united regionally !y theco**unity o) co**on geograhic areas and shared 'alues. in so*e cases religious and inothers secular andVor cultural$ They should consist o) states integrated along regionalistlines and reresent the oles o) the *ultiolar ,orld$ The Euroean /nion is one suchexa*le the nascent Eurasian /nion roosed !y Russia@s Gladi*ir Putin andKaHa"hstan@s President (ursultan (aHar!aye'. another$ An sla*ic /nion. a SouthA*ericanVoli'arianJ1;C /nion. a %hinese /nion. an ndian /nion. or a PanBPaci)ic/nion are other ossi!ilities$ The (orth A*erican <reat Sace. co'ering today@s (AFTA.,ould !e regarded as ust one a*ong se'eral other *ore or less e9ual oles. nothing *ore$

This is not an allBinclusi'e list o) such nonBstate actors or theories ,ith alternate'isions o) ,orld order$ There are others. !ut they are o) s*aller scale and thus !eyond thescoe o) this ,or"$ n the resent state o) ,orld a))airs. there is a serious di'ide !et,een the nationBstates and the su!Bstate or transnational actors and ideological *o'e*ents oerating ondi))erent le'els. *entioned a!o'e$ The nationBstates lac" 'ision and ideology. and thealternati'e *o'e*ents lac" su))icient in)rastructure and resources to ut their ideas into ractice$ ). in so*e circu*stance. it ,ere ossi!le to !ridge that ga. ta"ing intoconsideration the increasing de*ograhic. econo*ic. and strategic ,eight o) the nonB6estern ,orld. or ?the Rest@. an alternati'e to the A*ericanV6esternBled transition couldo!tain realistic shae and !e regarded seriously as a conse9uential and theoretically sound



alternate aradig* )or ,orld order$



6 Conser2atism an! Postmo!ernity

%e Are in Postmo!ernity

The rocess that. in )act. has a glo!al character is the rocess o) onceB'ictorious*odernis*@s *o'e*ent into ost*odernity$ There are centres. )oci. loci and regions ,herethis rocess roceeds logically and se9uentially$ These are the 6est. 6estern Euroe. andesecially the /nited States o) A*erica. ,here there ,as a historical oortunity to createin la!oratory conditions the oti*al society o) *odernity. on the !asis o) those rincilesthat ,ere de'eloed !y 6estern Euroean thought to create )ro* a !lan" age. ,ithout the !urden o) Euroean traditions. in an ?e*ty@ lace I (ati'e A*ericans. as is "no,n. ,erenot rec"oned as eole$ #ichael 5ardt and Antonio (egri sho, in their !oo" -mpire thatthe A*erican %onstitution loo"ed at A)ricanBA*ericans )ro* the start as secondBclass eole. ,hile the (ati'e A*ericans ,ere not thought o) as eole at all$ n such a ,ay. theseci)ic A*erican syste* ,as an ideal lace )or the realisation o) a *axi*u* o) )reedo*. !ut only )or 6hite eole. and at the cost o) a deter*inate exclusion o) all others$ n anycase. the /nited States o) A*erica is the a'antBgarde o) )reedo* and the loco*oti'e o) thetransition to ost*odernis*$

The iberty Pole an! the Free!om to Choose T@ #tations

6e so"e o) the ole that is 6estern Euroean ci'ilisation. !ut ,ithin the saces o)thought. in hilosohy. and in the geograhy o) the hu*an soul. the ole o) a uniolar,orld is nothing other than the /nited States and Euroe. as a urely geooliticalorganisation. and seci)ically the idea o) *axi*al )reedo*$ And the *o'e*ent to,ard therealisation o) this )reedo* is the signi)icance o) hu*an history. as 6estern Euroeanhu*anity understands it$ 6estern Euroean society *anaged to !ind the rest o) hu*anity tothis concetion o) the signi)icance o) history$

Thus. there exists the ole o) a uniolar ,orld I that is. the ole o) )reedo*. ,hicharri'ed at *odernity and is no, *o'ing to a ne, stage. to ost*odernity. in ,hich a *an !egins to )ree hi*sel) )ro* hi*sel). inso)ar as he encu*!ers. inter)eres ,ith and is !ored o) hi*sel)$ 5e disintegrates into ?schiHoB*asses@. as is ,ritten in DeleuHe@s Anti,8edipus.[=?>]

Peole ha'e !eco*e conte*lators uon tele'ision. ha'ing learned to change thechannel !etter and *ore 9uic"ly$ #any do not sto at all they clic" the re*ote. and it nolonger *atters ,hat is on I a co*edy or the ne,s$ The sectator o) ost*odernis* !asically understands nothing o) ,hat haens there is ust a strea* o) ictures. ,hich



a*use$ Tele'ision 'ie,ers are dra,n into *icroBrocesses. they !eco*e those ,ho ha'enot got their )ill o) the sectacle. ?su!Bsectators@. ,ho ne'er ,atch an entire rogra**e)ro* start to )inish. !ut only !its and ieces o) 'arious rogra**es$ To de*onstrate this.the ideal )il* is RodrigueH@s 'py @ids 2.[=?=] t is *ade in such a ,ay that there is no*eaning in it$ ut distraction )ro* it is i*ossi!le. !ecause as soon as our consciousness

!eco*es !ored o) it. a )lying ig suddenly aears. and ,e *ust continue ,atching to seeto ,here it )lies$ And exactly in the sa*e ,ay. the *o*ent the )lying ig !ores us. a littledragon cli*!s out o) the hero@s oc"et$ This roduction o) RodrigueH@s is )aultless$ n rincile. the *an ,ho inde)atiga!ly changes channels ,ill )ind aroxi*ately the sa*ee))ect here$ The only channel that ,or"s according to a di))erent rhyth* is that dedicated to?culture@. !ecause there one can still )ind unhurried histories o) co*osers. artists. scholars.theatre I that is. the re*nants o) *odernity$ ) it ,ere re*o'ed )ro* the !ill. then onecould cal*ly clic" through the channels not execting to )ind anything that goes against therhyth* in ,hich one *ust li'e$

The Para!o'es of Free!om

And so. ost*odernity arri'es$ 6hat can oose it7 And can one say ?no@ to it7 Thisis the )unda*ental 9uestion$ ncidentally. e*erging )ro* that sa*e li!eral thesis ,hich contends that *an is )ree.it )ollo,s that he is al,ays )ree to say ?no@. to say this to ,ho*e'er he ,ill$ This. in )act.constitutes the dangerous *o*ent o) the hilosohy o) )reedo*. ,hich under the aegis o)a!solute )reedo* !egins to re*o'e the )reedo* to say ?no@ to )reedo* itsel)$ The 6esternli!eral *odel says you ,ant to oose us7 Please. you ha'e the right !ut. loo" you ,illnot ,ant to gi'e your ,ashing *achine !ac". right7 The ,ashing *achine is the a!soluteargu*ent o) the suorters o) rogress$ A)ter all. e'eryone ,ants a ,ashing *achine Ilac" eole. nati'e eoles. conser'ati'es and the orthodox$ %o**unists. too. accordingto a di))erent logic. so"e o) the necessity and irre'ersi!ility o) structural change$ They saidthat socialis* ,ould co*e a)ter caitalis*$ Socialis* ca*e. although ,e lainly ne'er hadcaitalis*$ t stayed around )or so*e ti*e. destroyed 9uite a lot o) eole. and thendisaeared$ t is exactly thus ,ith the ,ashing *achine$ ) one thin"s a!out the*etahysics o) the ,ashing *achine. to ,hat extent it is couled ,ith the real 'alues o) a hilosohical syste*. one ,ill !e a!le to co*e to the conclusion that. in general. hu*an li)eis ossi!le. and erhas e'en has the otential to !e entirely hay. ,ithout the ,ashing*achine$ ut )or a li!eral society. this is a terri)ying thing. al*ost sacrilege$ 6e canunderstand e'erything. !ut li)e ,ithout the ,ashing *achine7 That@s already a reallyunscienti)ic saying li)e ,ithout the ,ashing *achine is i*ossi!le$ There is no such thing$Li)e is the ,ashing *achine$ n this resides the e))ect o) the )orce o) the li!eral argu*ent.,hich ta"es on a totalitarian character$ There is al,ays an ele*ent o) so*e "ind o)constraint in li!eration I this is the aradox o) )reedo*$ At the 'ery least. there are theconstraints o) ha'ing to thin" that )reedo* is the highest 'alue$ *agine that one ersonsays. ?Freedo* is the highest 'alue$@ Another resonds. ?(o. it isn@t$@ Then the )irst ans,ers.?ou@re against )reedo*7 ,ill "ill )or )reedo*@

The idea is contained in li!eralis* that there can !e no alternati'es to it$ And in this



there is so*e truth$ ) logos ut itsel) onto the ath o) )reedo*. i) the social logos ,as ulled into the ad'enture o) total li!eration. ,here ,as the )irst sho'e in this direction7 t*ust !e sought not in Descartes. (ietHsche or the T,entieth century. !ut !ac" ,ith the PreBSocratics$ 5eidegger sa, this *o*ent in the concetion o) hysisJ1=2 and in the ,ay it,as disclosed in Plato@s teaching o) the idea$ ut ,hat is i*ortant is so*ething else the

*o'e*ent o) logos to )reedo* is not accidental. !ut ne'ertheless one can say ?no@ to it$ Conser2atism as the &e.u!iation of the o)ic of istory

There is. ne'ertheless. the ontological ossi!ility o) saying ?no@$ And )ro* this !egins conser'atis*$ First. ,hat is conser'atis*7 t is a ?no@ said to that ,hich is around one$ n the na*eo) ,hat7 n the na*e o) so*ething that ca*e earlier$ n the na*e o) that ,hich. roerlysea"ing. ,as o'erco*e at so*e oint during socioolitical history$ That is. conser'atis* isthe ursuit o) an ontological. hilosohical. socioolitical. indi'idual. natural. religious.cultural. and scienti)ic osition that reudiates the *o'e*ents o) things that ,e are at thisti*e encountering. and ,hich ,e identi)ied and descri!ed earlier$

6e are sea"ing no, o) conser'atis* and that ,ith ,hich one can deny the 'erycourse o) history. ushing a,ay )ro* the sort o) socialBolitical toograhy that has dri'enus to *odernity and ost*odernity$ This *eans the ne, age o) *odernity. ,ith its linear'ectors o) rogress and ,ith its ost*odern contortions. ,hich are ta"ing us a,ay into thela!yrinths o) the disintegration o) indi'idual reality and to the rhiHo*atic su!ect or ostBsu!ect$ ut one can include here also earlier stages. ,hich *ade this tendency ossi!le anddo*inant$ %onser'atis* !uilds its osition on an oosition to the logic o) the un)olding o) the historical rocess$ The heno*enology o) *odernity I as. in our ti*e. o) ost*odernity I the rot o) ,hich conser'atis* see"s to reect. ser'es as an argu*ent inthis oosition$ ut conser'atis* as a structure does not lead to an i*ugning o) heno*ena$ (egati'ely 'alued heno*enology here is not *ore than a retext$%onser'atis* constructs a toograhy that reects the logic. ,or" and direction o) historicalti*e$ %onser'atis* can !uild u its oosition to historical ti*e in di))erent ,ays$ t hasthree )unda*ental ossi!ilities )or relating to the concetual trends o) *odernity and ost*odernity$ And )ro* this !egins the syste*atisation or structuralisation o)conser'atis*$ This is a syste*atisation ,ithout any re)erences ,hatsoe'er. !ecause thediscussion is o) scienti)ic. and not o) 'aluated udge*ents$

Fun!amental Conser2atism$ Tra!itionalism

The )irst aroach is soBcalled traditionalis*$ %onser'atis* could ,ell !etraditionalis*$ n so*e *odels o) olitical science. traditionalis* and conser'atis* di))eras. )or instance. in #annhei*@s$J1=8 ut ne'ertheless. the asiration to lea'e e'erything asit ,as in traditional societies. to reser'e that ,ay o) li)e. is. undou!tedly. conser'atis*$

A *ore logical traditionalis* I su!stantial. hilosohical. ontological andconcetual I is one that criticises. not 'arious asects o) *odernity and ost*odernity. !utthat reects the )unda*ental 'ector o) historical de'elo*ent I that is. one that essentially



ooses ti*e$ Traditionalis* is that )or* o) conser'atis* ,hich contends the )ollo,ing,hat is !ad are not those searate )rag*ents here and there ,ithin a larger syste* that callout )or our reudiation$ n the conte*orary ,orld. e'erything is !ad$ ?The idea o) rogressis !ad the idea o) technological de'elo*ent is !ad Descartes@ hilosohy o) the su!ectand o!ect is !ad (e,ton@s *etahor o) the ,atch*a"er is !adJ1=: conte*orary

ositi'e science. and the education and edagogy )ounded uon it. are !ad$@ ?Thiseiste*e@. reasons the conser'ati'e traditionist. ?is no good$ t is a totalitarian. )alse.negati'e eiste*e. against ,hich one *ust )ight$@ And )urther. i) ,e thin" his thoughtthrough ? li"e only that ,hich existed !e)ore the start o) *odernity$@ One could go )urtherand su!ect those tendencies to criticis* that in traditional society itsel) *ade ossi!le theaearance o) *odernity. all the ,ay u to the idea o) linear ti*e$

Such traditionalist conser'atis*. a)ter the )all o) *onarchs. the searation o) %hurchand State. and the ta"ing u o) the !aton o) *odernity !y all socioolitical. cultural andhistorical nations. ,as thought to !e nonBexistent$ n Russia. it ,as exter*inated !y atheist*ilitants$ Fro* a certain oint o) 'ie,. it is certainly so$ nas*uch as it ,as thought to ha'e !een co*letely eli*inated. eole al*ost stoed tal"ing a!out it o) social grous thatstood on these ositions. ractically none re*ained. and it soon enough disaeared e'en)ro* so*e *odels o) olitical science +e$g$. #annhei*@s-$ For that reason. ,e do not see itnor !egin )ro* it$ And this is unust$ ) ,e ,ant to trace genuine conser'atis* and constructa co*leted toograhy o) conser'ati'e ositions. ,e *ust. as a )irst riority. study recisely such an aroach$ n traditionalis* ,e ha'e a )ullB!lo,n and *ostly co*leteco*lex o) the conser'ati'e relationshi to history. society and the ,orld$ n the T,entieth century. ,hen. it ,ould see*. no social lat)or* re*ained at all)or such a conser'atis*. there suddenly aears a ,hole galaxy o) thin"ers hilosohers,ho !egin to de)end this traditionalist osition$ 6hat is *ore. they do so ,ith radicalis*.consistency and ersistence. and not ,ith the thoughts o) the (ineteenth or Eighteenthcenturies$ These are RenN <uNnon. 3ulius E'ola. Titus urc"hardt. Leoold iegler. and allthose ,ho are called ?traditionalists@ in the narro, sense o) the ,ord$ t is signi)icant that inthe (ineteenth century. ,hen there ,ere still *onarchs and churches. and ,hen the Poestill decided so*ething. there ,as no one ,ho held such radical oinions$ Traditionalistsad'anced the rogra**e o) )unda*ental conser'atis*. ,hen *atters concerning Traditionaroached their nadir$ n this ,ay. )unda*ental conser'atis* ,as a!le to !e )or*ulatedinto a hilosohical. olitical and ideological *odel once *odernis* had racticallycon9uered all ositions. !ut not ,hile there ,ere de)inite olitical and social )orces stillacti'ely struggling against it$ A nu*!er o) olitical scientists in the T,entieth century atte*ted to identi)y or totie together the in)luence o) )unda*ental conser'atis* ,ith )ascis*$ Louis Pau,els and3ac9ues ergier. the authors o) the !oo" The 9orning o% the 9agicians"[=?<] ,rote. ?tcould !e said that 5itleris*. in a sense. ,as <uNnonis*U lus tan"s$@J1== This. o) course.is de)initely not so$ Fascis* is sooner the hilosohy o) *odernity. ,hich. to a signi)icantdegree. is conta*inated ,ith ele*ents o) traditional society. though it does not rotestagainst *odernity nor against ti*e$ #oreo'er. !oth <uNnon and E'ola harshly criticised)ascis*$ n their ,or"s. <uNnon and E'ola ga'e an exhausti'e descrition o) the *ost)unda*ental conser'ati'e osition$ They descri!ed traditional society as a suerBte*oralideal. and the conte*orary ,orld o) *odernity and its )oundational rinciles as a roducto) the Fall. degeneration. degradation. the !lending o) castes. the deco*osition o)



hierarchy. and the shi)t o) attention a,ay )ro* the siritualJ1=> to the *aterial. )ro*hea'en to earth. )ro* the eternal to the ehe*eral. and so on$ The ositions o) thetraditionalists are distinguished !y er)ect orderliness and scale$ Their theories can ser'e asa *odel o) the conser'ati'e aradig* in its ure )or*$

O) course. so*e o) their e'aluations and rognoses turned out to !e incorrect$ n

articular. !oth anticiated the 'ictory o) ?the )ourth caste@. in other ,ords. the roletariat+as reresented !y the So'iet /nion- o'er ?the third caste@ +the caitalist ca*-. ,hich ro'ed incorrect$ They oosed %o**unis*. not co*letely understanding ho, *uchthere ,as in it o) traditional ele*ents$ A )e, o) their araisals need correction$ At onecongress in Ro*e. co**e*orating the t,entieth anni'ersary o) E'ola@s death. deli'ered alecture called ?E'ola I Gisto Da Sinistra@ +E'ola I The Gie, Fro* The Le)t-. in ,hich suggested ha'ing a good loo" at E'ola )ro* Le)tist ositions. though he considered hi*sel) to !e on the Right. e'en on the )ar Right$

Fun!amental Conser2atism in ?ur Time

There is also )unda*ental conser'atis* in our society$ First. the sla*ic roect is)unda*ental conser'atis*$ ) ,e eel it a,ay )ro* the negati'e stereotyes and loo" atho,. theoretically. those #usli*s ,ho lead the !attle against the conte*orary ,orld,ould ha'e to )eel and thin". ,e ,ill see that they stand on the sa*e tyical rinciles o))unda*ental conser'ati'es$ They *ust !elie'e in the letter o) e'ery ,ord o) the ur’an"

ignoring any attac"s )ro* the roonents o) tolerance. ,ho censure their oinions. )indingthe* cruel and out o) date$ ) a )unda*entalist co*es across such a co**entator ontele'ision. he co*es to a si*le conclusion he *ust thro, out the tele'ision. together ,iththe co**entator$

There is a si*ilar "ind o) orientation in A*erica. too. a*ong )unda*entalistProtestant grous$ And. as is not surrising. aroxi*ately the sa*e 'ie,s are held !y asigni)icant ercentage o) the Reu!lican electorate in the /SA$ And tele'ision rogra**es)eaturing these Protestant )unda*entalists. ,ho. )ro* a Protestant oint o) 'ie,. criticisee'erything one can criticise in *odernity and ost*odernity. lea'ing no stone unturned. are,atched !y *illions o) A*erican 'ie,ers$ There are a great nu*!er o) tele'angelists. li"ethe late 3erry Fal,ell. ,ho criticise. essentially. the conte*orary ,orld in all its)unda*entals. and interret all e'ents )ro* the oint o) 'ie, o) the Protestant 'ersion o)%hristianity$ Such eole are also )ound in !oth Orthodox and %atholic circles$ They reect*odernity structurally and entirely. considering the teachings and regulations o) theirreligion to !e a!solutely real. ,hile seeing *odernity and its 'alues as an exression o) therule o) the Antichrist. in ,hich there can !e nothing good !y de)inition$ These tendenciesare de'eloed a*ong the Russian Old elie'ers$J1= There is still a Paraclete /nion in the/rals that does not use electric la*s$ La*s are ?the light o) Luci)er@ thus. they use onlytorches and candles$ So*eti*es this reaches the oint o) a 'ery dee enetration into the essence o)things$ One o) the Old elie'er authors *aintains that. ?5e ,ho drin"s co))ee ,ill coughhi*sel) to death he ,ho drin"s the tea lea). ,ill )all )ro* <od in desair@$ Others a))ir*that one ought ne'er to eat !oiled !uc",heat !ecause it is ?sin)ul@$J1=C



%o))ee is strictly )or!idden in such circles$ This *ay sound stuid. !ut stuid )or,ho*7 For rational. conte*orary eole$ ndeed. ?the sin o) !oiled !uc",heat@ is stuid$ut i*agine that in the ,orld o) )unda*entalist conser'ati'es. roo* is )ound )or such a)igure as ?the sin o) !oiled !uc",heat@$ So*e Old elie'er congress *ight !e dedicated to

?the sin o) !oiled !uc",heat@$ At this congress. they ,ould see" to ascertain to ,hat ordero) de*ons it !elongs$ A)ter all. there ,ere ?trouser councils@$ 6hen a grou o) young Oldelie'ers. so*eti*e in the Eighteenth century. too" on the ha!it o) ,earing che9ueredtrousers. the FedoseyansJ1>0 gathered a council in Ki*ry. so*eti*es called the ?trousercouncils@. ,here it ,as discussed ,hether to searate )ro* good relations those ,ho ,earche9uered trousers. !ecause it see*ed at that ti*e that it ,as indecent )or a %hristian to,ear che9uered trousers$ Part o) the council 'oted to searate another art 'oted against$And these in'estigations are not really all that delirious$ Old elie'ers see* ?outdated@ tous. !ut they are not that outdated$ They are di))erent$ They oerate ,ithin the range o) adi))erent toograhy$ They deny that ti*e is rogress$ For the*. ti*e is regress. and*odern *en are a sacri)icial o))ering to the de'il$ 5ere ,e can !ring in the ideas o) %laude LN'iBStrauss$ 5e ro'es that the ?reBrational eoles@. o) ,ho* LN'yBrWhl and the e'olutionist scholars so"e. ,ho studied?ri*iti'es@. do not exist. and that a!original society or the structure o) ndian *yths ,ereas co*lex in their rational connections. enu*erated taxono*ies and uxtaosed the*esand haenings. and ust as dra*atic. as *odern Euroean )or*s$ They are si*lydi))erent$ 6e do not here ha'e an exa*le o) a ?reBlogos’ !ut o) a di))erent logos. ,herethe syste* o) relations. nuances. di))erences. di'ersities and constructed *odels ,or" in adi))erent syste* o) hyotheses. !ut !y its o,n co*lexity and the ara*eters o) itsstructures +structuralis* roceeds )ro* here- it is a!solutely co*ara!le ,ith theconsciousness. thought and social *odels o) socialisation and adatation o) other nations$ n )unda*ental conser'atis*. the renunciation o) *odernity has a er)ectly rationaland syste*atic )or*$ ) ,e o!ser'e )ro* that oint o) 'ie,. ,e see that a!solutelye'erything co*es together. e'erything is logical and rational. !ut arises )ro* a di))erentlogos$ t is a logos in the sace o) ,hich ?the sin o) !uc",heat@. the Paraclete /nion. li'ing !y candlelight I all that ,hich calls )orth a scorn)ul s*ile )ro* the *odern *an I doesnot call )orth a s*ile$ This is an utterly di))erent regi*e o) existence$

#tatus 3uo Conser2atism / iberal Conser2atism

There is a second tye o) conser'atis*. ,hich ,e ha'e called statusB9uo or li!eralconser'atis*$ t is li!eral !ecause it says ?yes@ to the *ain trend that is realised in*odernity$ ut at each stage o) this trend it atte*ts to ste on the !ra"es ?Let@s go slo,er.let@s not do that no,. let@s ostone that$@ Li!eral conser'ati'es reason aroxi*ately thus it is good that there is the )reeindi'idual. !ut this )ree ostBindi'idual. that@s a little too *uch$ Or ta"e the 9uestion o) ?theend o) history@$ Fu"uya*a at )irst !elie'ed that olitics had disaeared. and that it ,oulde'entually !e entirely relaced !y ?the glo!al *ar"etlace@. in ,hich nations. go'ern*ents.ethnicities. cultures and religions disaear$ ut later he decided that one ,ould ha'e toslo, the rocess do,n and i*le*ent ost*odernity *ore cal*ly. ,ithout re'olutions.



!ecause in re'olutions there could aear so*ething undesira!le. ,hich could disrut the lan o) ?the end o) history@$ And then Fu"uya*a started to ,rite that it is necessary tote*orarily strengthen national go'ern*ents$ This is already li!eral conser'atis*$ Li!eral conser'ati'es do not li"e Le)tists$ They also do not li"e RightB,ingers. suchas E'ola and <uNnon. either. !ut these they do not notice at all$ ut as soon as they see

Le)tists. they i**ediately s9uare u$ Li!eral conser'ati'es are distinguished !y the )ollo,ing 9ualitati'e structuralcharacteristics agree*ent ,ith the general trends o) *odernity. !ut disagree*ent ,ith its*ore a'antBgarde *ani)estations. ,hich see* excessi'ely dangerous and unhealthy$ Forinstance. the English hilosoher. Ed*und ur"e.J1>1 at )irst sy*athised ,ith theEnlighten*ent. !ut a)ter the French Re'olution. he ushed a,ay )ro* it and de'eloed ali!eralBconser'ati'e theory ,ith a )rontBend criticis* o) re'olution and Le)tists$ 5ence theli!eral conser'ati'e rogra**e to de)end )reedo*. rights. the indeendence o) *an. rogress and e9uality. !ut !y other *eans I through e'olution. not re'olution lest there !e. <od )or!id. a release )ro* so*e !ase*ent o) those dor*ant energies ,hich ,ith the3aco!ins issued in the Terror.J1>2 and then in the antiBTerror. and so on$ n this ,ay. li!eral conser'atis* rincially does not rotest against thosetendencies ,hich constitute the essence o) *odernity and e'en ost*odernity. althoughli!eral conser'ati'es !e)ore the )ace o) ost*odernity ,ill ress do,n *ore strongly on the !ra"e edal than !e)ore$ That is. here at so*e oint they can e'en shout out ?5alt@ Seeing,hat ost*odernity carries ,ith itsel). and ha'ing their eyes on DeleuHe[s rhiHo*e. they*ani)estly )eel the*sel'es out o) their ele*ent$ esides. they are a)raid that the 9uic"eningdis*antle*ent o) *odernity. ,hich is !eing un,raed into ost*odernity. *ight li!eratethe reB*odern$ They ,rite o) this )ran"ly$ For instance. the li!eral 5a!er*as.J1>8 ,ho ,as once a Le)tist. says that i) ?6e donot no, reser'e the hard sirit o) the Enlighten*ent. or !elie) in the ideals o) the )reesu!ect and *oral li!eration$ ) ,e do not hold *an on this reciice. then ,e ,ill )ly o))not only into chaos. !ut ,e ,ill return to the shado, o) tradition. and the sense o) the ,aragainst it. ,hich ,as. in )act. reresented !y *odernity$@J1>: That is. he )ears that)unda*ental conser'ati'es ,ill co*e$

+in a!en as #i)n

The )igure o) !in Laden. indeendent o) ,hether he is real or ,hether he ,asthought u in 5olly,ood. has a )unda*ental hilosohical signi)icance$ This is a)or*ulated caricature o) the transition ,ithin the )ra*e,or" o) ost*odernity to the reB*odern$ t is an o*inous ,arning that the reB*odern +tradition-. *eaning a !elie) in those'alues that ,ere gathered into a hea and ta"en to the un"yard at the 'ery start o)*odernity. can still arise$ The hysiogno*y o) !in Laden. his gestures. his aearance onour screens and in ne,saers and *agaHines I this is a hilosohical sign$ This is a signo) ,arning to hu*anity. co*ing )ro* the side o) li!eral conser'ati'es$

The #imulacra of Che >ue2ara



Li!eral conser'ati'es as a rule do not er)or* that analysis concerning the relation !et,een li!eralis* and %o**unis* that ,e er)or*ed. and they continue to )ear%o**unis*$ 6e already said that the e'ents o) 1CC1 I the end o) the So'iet /nion I ossess colossal hilosohical and historical signi)icance. and ha'e )e, analogues$ There

are only a )e, such e'ents in history. as in 1CC1 li!eralis* ro'ed its exclusi'e right to theorthodox inheritance o) the aradig* o) *odernity$ All other 'ersions I including the *osti*ortant. %o**unis* I ro'ed to !e de'iations on the ath o) *odernity o))shoots.leading to another goal$ %o**unists thought that they ,ere tra'elling the aths o)*odernity in the direction o) rogress. !ut it !eca*e clear that they ,ere *o'ing to,ardso*e other goal. set in a di))erent concetual sace$ ut a )e, li!erals suose e'en todaythat ?%o**unists ga'e u their ositions only te*orarily@ and *ight yet return$ Extraolating )alse )ears. conte*orary antiB%o**unis*. to a larger degree. ro!a!ly. than conte*orary antiB)ascis*. gi'es !irth to chi*eras. sectres. and si*ulacra$%o**unis* is no longer resent +as )ascis* has long ceased to !e- I in its lace therere*ains a lasterBcast i*itation. a har*less %he <ue'ara. ad'ertising *o!ile telehones oradorning the shirts o) idle and co*)orta!le ettyB!ourgeoisie youth$ n the eoch o)*odernity. %he <ue'ara ,as the ene*y o) caitalis* in the eoch o) ost*odernity. head'ertises *o!ile connections on gigantic !ill!oards$ This is the style in ,hich%o**unis* can return I in the )or* o) a si*ulacra$ The *eaning o) this co**ercialgesture consists in the ost*odern laughing o)) o) the retensions o) %o**unis* to !e analternati'e logos ,ithin the )ra*e,or" o) *odernity$

(e'ertheless. li!eral conser'atis*. as a rule. is a stranger to this irony. and is notinclined to o"e ,ith either ?Reds@ or ?ro,ns@$ The reason )or this is that li!eralconser'atis* )ears the relati'isation o) logos in ost*odernity. !eing uncertain that theene*y has !een co*letely de)eated$ t drea*s that the rostrate carcass still stirs. andthere)ore it does not reco**end aroaching it too closely or *oc"ing it. seeing this as)lirting ,ith danger$

The Conser2ati2e &e2olution

There exists yet a third "ind o) conser'atis*$ Fro* a hilosohical oint o) 'ie,. itis the *ost interesting$ This is a )a*ily o) conser'ati'e ideologies that it is custo*ary tocall the %onser'ati'e Re'olution +%R-$ This constellation o) ideologies and olitical hilosohies considers the ro!le* o) the correlation !et,een conser'atis* and *odernitydialectically$

One o) the theorists o) the %onser'ati'e Re'olution ,as Arthur #oeller 'an denruc". ,hose !oo" ,as recently translated into Russian$J1>; Other thin"ers ,ho !elongedto this tendency ,ere #artin 5eidegger. the !rothers Ernst and Friedrich 3Wnger. %arlSch*itt. Os,ald Sengler. 6erner So*!art. Oth*ar Sann. Friedrich 5ielscher. Ernst (ie"isch and a ,hole constellation o) *ostly <er*an authors. ,ho are so*eti*es called?the dissidents o) (ational Socialis*@. !ecause the *aority o) the*. at so*e stage.suorted (ational Socialis*. !ut soon )ound the*sel'es in a state o) internal e*igration.or e'en in ail$ #any o) the* articiated in the antiB)ascist underground and heled to sa'e3e,s$ n articular. Friedrich 5ielscher. a )irstBrate %onser'ati'e Re'olutionary and a



suorter o) the <er*an national renaissance. heled the )a*ous 3e,ish hilosoher.#artin u!er.J1>= hide )ro* the (aHis$

Conser2ati2es ust ea! the &e2olution

One can descri!e the general aradig* o) the %onser'ati'e Re'olutionary,orld'ie, in the )ollo,ing *anner$ There exists an o!ecti'e rocess o) degradation in the,orld$ This is not si*ly the stri'ing o) ?e'il )orces@ to eretrate their chicanery it is the)orces o) )reedo*. the )orces o) the *ar"et. ,hich lead hu*anity along the ath o)degeneration$ The ea" o) degeneration. )ro* the oint o) 'ie, o) %onser'ati'eRe'olutionaries. is *odernity$ So )ar. e'erything o'erlas ,ith the traditionalist osition$ut. in contrast to it. %onser'ati'e Re'olutionaries !egin to as" the*sel'es ,hy did ithaen that !elie) in <od. ,ho created the ,orld. in di'ine ro'idence. in the sacred. in*yth. trans)or*s in a seci)ic *o*ent into its o,n oosite7 6hy does it slac"en and ,hyare the ene*ies o) <od 'ictorious7 A )urther susicion arises *ay!e that re*ar"a!legolden age. ,hich the )unda*entalist conser'ati'es de)end. carried in itsel) so*e "ind o)gene o) )uture er'ersion7 #ay!e things ,ere not all that great e'en in religion7 #ay!ethose religious. sacral and sacred )or*s o) traditional society. ,hich ,e can still catch agli*se o) u until the onset o) *odernity. carried in the*sel'es a certain ele*ent o)decay7 And then the %onser'ati'e Re'olutionaries say to the conser'ati'e )unda*entalists?ou o))er to return to a condition ,hen *an exhi!ited only the )irst sy*to*s o) illness.,hen there )irst !egan the hac"ing cough$ Today this *an lies dying. !ut you sea" o) ho,good things ,ere )or hi* earlier$ ou contrast a coughing *an ,ith a dying one$ ut ,e,ant to dig do,n to disco'er )ro* ,hence ca*e the in)ection and ,hy he started to cough$The )act that. in coughing. he does not die. !ut goes to ,or". does not con'ince us that he is,hole and healthy$ So*e,here that 'irus *ust ha'e nested e'en earlier$$$@ ?6e !elie'[email protected] the %onser'ati'e Re'olutionaries. ?that in the 'ery Source. in the 'ery Deity. inthe 'ery First %ause. there is dra,n u the intention o) organising this eschatologicaldra*a$@ n such a 'ision. the *odern ac9uires a aradoxical character$ t is not *erelytoday@s sic"ness +in the reudiated resent-. it is a disclosure in today@s ,orld o) that ,hichyesterday@s ,orld reared )or it +so recious )or traditionalists-$ #odernity does not !eco*e !etter )ro* this and tradition. *ean,hile. loses its une9ui'ocal ositi'ity$

One o) the *ost i*ortant )or*ulas o) Arthur #oeller 'an den ruc" ,as ?Earlierconser'ati'es atte*ted to sto the re'olution. !ut ,e *ust lead it$@ This signi)ies that.ha'ing co*e together in solidarity. in art )or rag*atic *oti'es. ,ith the destructi'etendencies o) *odernity. one *ust unco'er and esy that !acillus ,hich. )ro* the !eginning. engendered the tendency to )uture decline I that is. to *odernity$ %onser'ati'eRe'olutionaries ,ant not only to slo, ti*e do,n. li"e the li!eral conser'ati'es. or to returnto the ast li"e traditionalists. !ut to ull out )ro* the structure o) the ,orld the roots o)e'il. to a!olish ti*e as a destructi'e 9uality o) reality. and in so doing )ul)illing so*e "indo) secret. arallel. nonBe'ident intention o) the Deity itsel)$

(asein an! >e-stell



The 5eideggerian history o) hilosohy is !uilt on a si*ilar *odel$ (asein. as the)inal and localised !eing o) *an. !egan the raising o) the 9uestion o) !eing I that is. o)itsel) and its surroundings I at the day!rea" o) hilosohy$ The concet o) hysis !eca*e

one o) the )irst concetions exressing this "ind o) 9uestioning. li"ening !eing to natureand concetualising it as a se9uence o) ?ascents@$ The second concetion ,as the agrarian*etahor o) logos. a concet )or*ed )ro* the 'er! legein I that is. ?to har'est@. and laterrecei'ing the sense o) ?to thin"@. ?to read@. ?to sea"@$ The air. hysisBlogos. according to5eidegger. descri!ing !eing. e*!raced it in excessi'ely narro, )ra*e,or"s$ These)ra*e,or"s ,ere narro,ed do,n )urther in Plato@s teaching a!out ideas$ Further*ore.Euroean thin"ing only aggra'ated alienation )ro* !eing through increasing rationalis*.u to the o!li'ion o) thoughts a!out !eing altogether$ At the cus o) the (ineteenth andT,entieth centuries. this o!li'ion silled o'er into nihilis*$ n general ter*s. the de)initi'eessence o) the increasing do*ination o) techni9ue in 5eideggerian hilosohy is +e,stell .that is po,stav.J1>> the organisation o) all ne, alienating and nihilistic *odels$ ut )or 5eidegger. +e,stell is not an accident$ t exresses !y itsel) that ,hich. onthe other side o) !eing. is nothing. as its internal *easure$ n authentic (asein. !eing andnothing *ust !e resent together$ ut i) a *an accents !eing as ?the uni'ersal@ +koinon- Ithat is. only as that ,hich is +the idea o) physis- I he lets out o) sight nothingness. ,hichre*inds hi* o) hi*sel). leading hilosohy to nihilis* I through +e,stell $ Thus.conte*orary nihilis* is not si*ly e'il. !ut ne,s o) !eing. turned to,ards (asein. !utgi'en in this co*lex ,ay$ There)ore. the tas" o) %onser'ati'e Re'olutionaries is notsi*ly to o'erco*e nothingness and the nihilis* o) *odernity. !ut to untangle the tangle o) the history o) hilosohy and to deciher the *essage contained in +e,stell $ The nihilis* o) *odernity. thus. is not only e'il +as )or the traditionalists-. !ut also a sign. ointing to thedee structures o) !eing and the aradoxes lying ,ithin the*$

The >loomy n! of the #ho"

%onser'ati'e Re'olutionaries desise the actual to such a degree that they are notcontent to oose it *erely ,ith the ast$ They say ?The actual is disgusting. !ut one *ustli'e it through. dri'e it )or,ard. ull it to its )inal end$@ The li!eral ost*odernist o))ers ?an endless end@$ Fu"uya*a@s ?end o) history@ is notsi*ly a disaearance a)ter the end o) history. econo*ic transactions continue to occur*ar"ets continue to oerate hotels. !ars and nightclu!s shi**er in'itingly exchanges)unction di'idends are aid according to their rice in the aer co*uter screens andtele'isions shine stoc"s are issued$ 5istory is not. !ut the *ar"et and TG are.

E'erything is di))erent ,ith %onser'ati'e Re'olutionaries$ At the end o) history.they count on *a"ing their aearance on the other side o) (asein. )ro* the trou!led saceo) ?that side@. and to trans)or* the ost*odernist ga*e into a nonBga*e$ The sectacle+?the society o) the sectacle@ o) <uy De!ord-J1> ,ill end ,ith so*ething 'eryunleasant )or 'ie,ers and actors$ n its ti*e. according to ust such a logic. there oerateda grou o) SurrealistBDadaists Arthur %ra'an. 3ac9ues Rigaut. 3ulien Tor*a and 3ac9uesGache. ,ho glori)ied suicide$ ut critics thought o) this as e*ty !ragging$ n one *o*ent.



the grou u!licly did the*sel'es in. ro'ing that art and Surrealis* ,ere. )or the*. a*atter o) such gra'ity that they ga'e their li'es )or it$ 5ere ,e can recall Kirilo' )ro*Dostoe's"y@s (emons"[=*#] )or ,ho* suicide !eca*e an exression o) the co*lete)reedo* that oened u a)ter ?the death o) <od@$

Recently in Russia there occurred e'ents no less horrendous$ For instance. 0ord,

8st.[=&>] The o!scene and raunchy co*ic actor. Sasha Tse"alo. uts on a er)or*ance. at,hich an i*ressi'e #osco, u!lic is resent$ Then %hechen terrorists arri'e. and at )irst eole thin" that this is a art o) the er)or*ance$ Only later. ,ith horror. do theyunderstand that so*ething not right is haening on stage. and then there !egins a real.night*arish tragedy$

%onser'ati'e Re'olutionaries resent the*sel'es in an aroxi*ately si*ilar*anner let the !u))oonery o) ost*odernis* ha'e its turn let it erode de)inite aradig*s.the ego. suerBego and logos let it oin u ,ith the rhiHo*e. schiHoB*asses and slinteredconsciousness let nothing carry along in itsel) the su!stance o) the ,orld I then secretdoors ,ill oen. and ancient. eternal. ontological archetyes ,ill co*e to the sur)ace and.in a )right)ul ,ay. ,ill ut an end to the ga*e$

eft-%in) Conser2atism #ocial Conser2atism

There is still another tendency. soBcalled Le)tB,ing conser'atis* or socialconser'atis*$ The tyical reresentati'e o) social conser'atis* is <eorges SorelJ11 +seehis e%lections on 7iolence-$J12 5e held !ac" his Le)tist 'ie,s. !ut at a seci)ic *o*entdisco'ered that !oth the Le)t and the Right +*onarchists and %o**unists- )ight the sa*eene*y the !ourgeoisie$ Le)tB,ing conser'atis* is close to the Russian (ational olshe'is* o) /strialo'.,ho detected Russian national *yths under the urely Le)tB,ing #arxist ideology$ This ise'en *ore distinctly set )orth in the (ational Socialis* o) Strasser.J18 and in the (ational olshe'is* o) (ie"isch$ Such Le)tB,ing conser'atis* can !e !rought to the)a*ily o) the %onser'ati'e Re'olution. or it can !e searated into a distinct school$ t is interesting that the arty /nited RussiaJ1: adoted social conser'atis* as itsin)or*ing ideology$ This orientation is no, !eing de'eloed !y Andrei saye'$ At the other ole o) /nited Russia is the li!eral conser'atis* o) Pligin$

urasianism as an .isteme

Eurasianis* is not a olitical hilosohy. !ut an eiste*e$ t concerns itsel) ,ith theclass o) conser'ati'e ideologies and shares so*e characteristics ,ith )unda*entalconser'atis* +traditionalis*- and ,ith the %onser'ati'e Re'olution +including the socialconser'atis* o) the Le)tist Eurasianists-$ The one thing in conser'atis* that is notacceta!le to Eurasianists is li!eral conser'atis*$

Eurasianis*. recognising the retence o) the 6estern logos to uni'ersality. re)usesto recogniHe this uni'ersality as an ine'ita!ility$ This is the seci)ic character o)Eurasianis*$ t considers 6estern culture as a local and te*orary heno*enon. and



a))ir*s a *ultilicity o) cultures and ci'ilisations ,hich coexist at di))erent *o*ents o) acycle$ For Eurasianists. *odernity is a heno*enon eculiar only to the 6est. ,hile othercultures *ust di'est these retensions to the uni'ersality o) 6estern ci'ilisation and !uildtheir societies on internal 'alues$ There is no single historical rocess e'ery nation has itso,n historical *odel. ,hich *o'es in a di))erent rhyth* and at ti*es in di))erent

directions$ Eurasianis*. in itsel). is gnoseological lurality$ The unitary eiste*e o) *odernity I including science. olitics. culture and anthroology I is oosed !y the *ultilicity o) eiste*es. !uilt on the )oundations o) each existing ci'ilisation I the Eurasianist eiste*e)or Russian ci'ilisation. the %hinese )or the %hinese. the sla*ic )or sla*. the ndian )orthe ndian. and so on$ And only on these )oundations. cleansed o) 6esternB*andatedeiste*es. *ust longBter* socioolitical. cultural and econo*ic roects !e !uilt$ 6e see in this a seci)ic )or* o) conser'atis*. ,hich di))ers )ro* other. si*ilarconser'ati'e 'ersions +,ith the excetion o) li!eral conser'atis*- in that its alternati'e to*odernity is not ta"en )ro* the ast or )ro* uni9ue re'olutionaryBconser'ati'e ideologies. !ut )ro* societies historically coBexisting ,ith 6estern ci'ilisation. !ut geograhically andculturally di))erent )ro* it$ n this. Eurasianis* aroaches. in art. the traditionalis* o)<uNnon. ,ho also thought that ?conte*oriety@ ,as a ?6estern@ notion. ,hile )or*s o)traditional society ,ere reser'ed in the East$ t is not accidental that a*ong Russianauthors. the )irst to re)er to <uNnon@s !oo" -ast and Best[=&<] ,as the Eurasianist ($ ($Ale"see'$

Neo-urasianism

(eoBEurasianis*. ,hich aeared in Russia in the late 1C0s. co*letelyarehended the )unda*ental oints o) the re'ious Eurasianists@ eiste*e. !ut itsule*ented the* ,ith attention to traditionalis*. geoolitics. structuralis*. the)unda*entalBontology o) 5eidegger. sociology. and anthroology. and li"e,ise carried outthe gigantic tas" o) roducing concord !et,een the !asic conditions o) Eurasianis* and therealities o) the second hal) o) the T,entieth century and the !eginning o) the T,entyB)irst.,ith an enu*eration o) ne, scienti)ic de'elo*ents and studies$ Today. Eurasianist ournals are circulated in taly. France. and Tur"ey$

(eoBEurasianis* is )ounded uon the hilosohical analysis o) the theses o)*odernity and ost*odernity$ Detach*ent )ro* 6estern culture allo,s )or distance. than"sto ,hich it is ossi!le to e*!race ,ith a glance all o) *odernity. and to say to all o) that a)unda*ental ?no@$

n the T,entieth century. *odernity and 6estern ci'ilisation ,ere syste*aticallysu!ected to an analogical criti9ue !y Sengler. Toyn!ee. and esecially the structuralists I in the )irst lace. LN'iBStrauss. ,ho )ounded structural anthroology$ This structuralanthroology is !ased on the rincial e9uality !et,een 'arious cultures. )ro* the ri*iti'eto the *ost de'eloed. ,hich deri'es 6estern Euroean culture o) any "ind o) sueriorityo'er the *ost ?,ild@ and ?ri*iti'e@ nonBliterate tri!es$ 5ere ,e *ust recall that theEurasianists Ro*an 3a"o!sonJ1= and (icolai Tru!ets"oy.J1> the )ounders o) honology and e*inent reresentati'es o) structural linguistics. ,ere the teachers o) Le'iBStrauss and trained hi* in the ractice o) structural analysis. ,hich he hi*sel) ,illingly



ac"no,ledges$ n this ,ay. an intellectual chain is retraced I Eurasianis*. structuralis*.and (eoBEurasianis*$ n this sense. (eoBEurasianis* !eco*es the restoration o) a !roadsectru* o) ideas. insights and intuitions. ,hich the )irst Eurasianists outlined and into,hich entered organically the results o) the scienti)ic acti'ity o) 'arious schools andauthors +)or the *ost art. those ,ith a conser'ati'e orientation- that de'eloed in arallel

throughout the entire course o) the T,entieth century$



7 Ci2ilisation as an *!eolo)ical Conce.t

The (eman! for a ore 'act (efinition

There is no agree*ent today as to the *eaning o) the concet ?ci'ilisation@ inintellectual and scienti)ic circles I as. !y the ,ay. is the case ,ith other )unda*entalter*s$ This srings )ro* the )unda*ental *eaning o) our eoch. shi)ting )ro* *odernity to ost*odernity. ,hich essentially a))ects se*antic )ields and linguistic )or*s$ And.inas*uch as ,e )ind oursel'es in the stage o) an un)inished transition. an inconcei'a!lecon)usion reigns in our ideas so*eone uses custo*ary ter*s in their old sense so*eone)eels the necessity )or se*antic dislace*ent and glances into the )uture +,hich has not yetco*e- so*eone )antasises +erhas co*ing closer to the )uture. or si*ly )alling intoindi'idualistic. irrele'ant hallucinations- so*eone else gets co*letely con)used$ 6hate'er the case *ight !e. )or the correct use o) ter*s. esecially "ey ter*s. to,hich. undou!tedly. the concet o) ci'ilisation !elongs. it is necessary today to carry out.let it !e ele*entarily. a deconstruction. tracingJ1 the *eaning to its historical context.and retracing its !asic se*antic shi)ts$

Ci2ilisation as a Phase of the (e2elo.ment of #ocieties

The ter* ?ci'ilisation@ recei'ed ,ide circulation in the eoch o) the raidde'elo*ent o) the theory o) rogress$ This theory roceeded )ro* t,o )unda*ental. aradig*atic axio*s o) *odernity the rogressi'e and unidirectional character o) hu*ande'elo*ent +)ro* *inus to lus- and the uni'ersality o) *an as a heno*enon$ n thiscontext. ?ci'ilisation@. )or L$ 5$ #organ.J1C de)ines the stage in ,hich ?hu*anity@ +in the (ineteenth century. e'eryone uncritically !elie'ed as one in the e'ident existence o) such aconcet as ?hu*anity@- co**ences a)ter the stage o) ?!ar!arity@. ,hile that. in turn.relaces ,ith itsel) the stage o) ?sa'agery@$

#arxists adoted such an interretation o) ci'ilisation easily. ha'ing ,ritten it intothe theory o) the e'olution o) econo*ic syste*s$ According to #organ. Taylor and Engels.J1C0 ?sa'agery@ characterises tri!es engaged in gathering and ri*iti'e "inds o) hunting$?ar!arity@ relates to nonBliterate societies. occuied ,ith the si*lest "inds o) ruralecono*y and cattleB!reeding. ,ithout a clear di'ision o) la!our or de'elo*ent o)socioolitical institutions$ ?%i'ilisation@ signi)ies !y itsel) the stage o) the aearance o)letters. socioolitical institutions. cities. cra)ts. technological i*ro'e*ents. the di'ision o)society into classes. and the aearance o) de'eloed theological and religious syste*s$?%i'ilisations@ ,ere thought o) as historically steady and a!le to !e reser'ed de'eloing. !ut ,ith their ri*ary )eatures re*aining constant o'er the course o) *illennia +such as the#esoota*ian. Egytian. ndian. %hinese. and Ro*an ci'ilisations-$



Ci2ilisation an! m.ire

5o,e'er. together ,ith the urely historicalBhase *eaning in the concet o)?ci'ilisation@. a territorial sense ,as also included. though less exlicitly$ ?%i'ilisation@o))ered a 'ast enough area o) di))usion that is. in addition to a considera!le te*oraldi*ension. a !road satial di))usion ,as also resu*ed to characterise it$ n this territorialsense. the !orders o) the ter* ?ci'ilisation@ in art coincided ,ith the *eaning o) the ,ord?e*ire@. in the sense o) a ?,orld o,er@$ ?E*ire@ in this ci'ilisational sense ointed not tothe eculiarity o) a olitical and ad*inistrati'e arrange*ent. !ut to the )act o) an acti'e andintense sread o) in)luence. roceeding )ro* the centres o) ci'ilisation to the surroundingterritory. suosedly oulated !y ?!ar!arians@ or ?sa'ages@$ n other ,ords. in the 'eryconcet o) ci'ilisation one can already esy the character o) exansion and the exort o)in)luence characteristic o) e*ires +ancient and *odern-$

Ci2ilisation an! the ni2ersal Ty.e

%i'ilisation ,or"ed out a ne, uni'ersal tye. 9ualitati'ely di))ering )ro* the*odels o) ?!ar!arian@ and ?sa'age@ societies$ This tye ,as *ost o)ten !uilt on the?glo!alisation@ o) that ethnoBtri!al andVor religious centre that stood at the source o) a gi'enci'ilisation$ ut in the course o) this ?glo!alisation@. that is. through the e9uating o) theconcrete ethnic. socioolitical and religious attern to the ?uni'ersal standard@. the 'eryi*ortant rocess o) transcending the ethnos itsel) occurred. trans)erring its natural andorganic. *ost o)ten unconsciously i*arted. tradition into the ran" o) a *anB*ade andconscious. rational syste*$ The citiHens o) Ro*e. e'en in the )irst stages o) the E*ire.already di))ered essentially )ro* the tyical residents o) Latiu*. ,hile a 'ariety o)#usli*s. raying in Ara!ic. ,ent )ar !eyond the edouin tri!es o) Ara!ia and their directethnic descendants$

n this ,ay. at the ti*e o) the *o'e to ?ci'ilisation@. social anthroology9ualitati'ely changed *an. turning to ?ci'ilisation@. had a collecti'e identity i*rinted on a)ixed !ody o) siritual culture. ,hich he ,as o!liged to assi*ilate to a certain degree$ %i'ilisation assu*ed a rational and 'olitional )orce )ro* the side o) *an that.,hich in the Se'enteenth century. a)ter Descartes. hilosohers started to call ?the su!ect@$ut the necessity o) such a )orce. and the resence o) a *odel. a!stracted and )ixed in theculture. e9ualised itsel). to a certain extent. ,ith !oth the reresentati'es o) the core ethnos+o) religion-. lying at the )oundation o) ?ci'ilisation@. and those ,ho ended u in the Hone o) in)luence )ro* other ethnic contexts$ To adot the )oundations o) ci'ilisation ,as9ualitati'ely easier than to !e acceted into a tri!e. inas*uch as there ,as )or this node*and to organically a!sor! the gigantic reser'oirs o) unconscious archetyes. !ut to er)or* a series o) rational. logical oerations$

Ci2ilisation an! Culture



n so*e contexts +deending on the country or the author- in the (ineteenth century.the concet o) ci'ilisation ,as identi)ied ,ith the concet o) culture$ n other cases.hierarchical relations ,ere esta!lished !et,een the* I *ost o)ten. culture ,as thought o)

as the siritual )illing o) ci'ilisation. ,hile ci'ilisation roerly *eant the )or*al structureo) society. ans,ering to the *ain oints o) the de)inition$Os,ald Sengler. in his )a*ous !oo" The (ecline o% the Best . e'en contrasted

ci'ilisation and culture. considering the second an exression o) the organic. 'ital sirit o)*an. !ut the )irst a roduct o) the cooling o)) o) that sirit in *echanical and urelytechnical !oundaries$ According to Sengler. ci'ilisation is a roduct o) cultural death$5o,e'er. such a sharB,itted o!ser'ation. correctly interreting so*e 9ualities o)conte*orary 6estern ci'ilisation. did not recei'e general ac"no,ledge*ent and *osto)ten today the ter*s ci'ilisation and culture are used as synony*s. although eachresearcher can ha'e his o,n oinion on this oint$

Postmo!ernism an! the #ynchronistic n!erstan!in) of Ci2ilisation

E'en the *ost cursory sur'ey o) the *eaning o) the ter* ci'ilisation sho,s that. inusing it. ,e are dealing ,ith a concet saturated ,ith the sirit o) the Enlighten*ent. rogressi'is* and historicis*. ,hich ,as characteristic )or the eoch o) *odernity in itsuncritical stage that is. until the )unda*ental reconsiderations o) the T,entieth century$Faith in the rogressi'e de'elo*ent o) history. in the uni'ersality o) the hu*an athaccording to a co**on logic o) de'elo*ent )ro* sa'agery to ci'ilisation. ,as thedistinguishing )eature o) the (ineteenth century$ ut already ,ith (ietHsche and Freud. thesoBcalled ?hilosohers o) susicion@. this oti*istic axio* started to !e dou!ted$ And o'era eriod o) the T,entieth century. 5eidegger. the existentialists. traditionalists.structuralists. and at last ost*odernists s*ashed it to !its$ n ost*odernity. criticis* o) historical oti*is*. uni'ersalis* and historicis*ac9uired a syste*atic character and esta!lished the doctrinal re*ises )or a total re'ision o) the concetual aaratus o) 6estern Euroean hilosohy$ This re'ision itsel) has not yet !een carried out to its conclusion. !ut ,hat has !een done +!y Le'iBStrauss. arthes.Ricoeur. Foucalt. DeleuHe. Derrida. and others- is already enough to con'ince one o) thei*ossi!ility o) using the dictionary o) *odernity ,ithout a thorough and rigorousdeconstruction$ Paul Ricoeur. su**arising the theses o) the ?hilosohers o) susicion@. aints the )ollo,ing icture *an and *an@s society consist in rationalBconsciousco*onents +kerigma. according to ult*ann ?suerstructure@. according to #arx [email protected] Freud- and the unconscious +roerly. ?structures@ in the Structuralist understanding?!ases@ ?the ,ill to o,er@ o) (ietHsche ?the unconscious@-$J1C1 And although externallyit see*s that the ath o) *an leads directly )ro* the cati'ity o) the unconscious to the"ingdo* o) reason. and that this exactly reresents rogress and the content o) history. in)act. under the closest scrutiny. it !eco*es clear that the unconscious +?*yth@- ro'es *uchstronger and. as !e)ore. considera!ly redeter*ines the ,or" o) the intellect$ #oreo'er.reason itsel) and conscious. logical acti'ity is al*ost al,ays nothing other than a gigantic,or" o) reressing unconscious i*ulses I in other ,ords. an exression o) co*lexes.



strategies o) dislace*ent. the su!stitution o) roection. and so on$ n #arx. theunconscious is layed !y ?the )orces o) roduction@ and ?industrial relations@$J1C2

%onse9uently. ci'ilisation does not *erely re*o'e ?sa'agery@ and ?!ar!aris*@.entirely o'erco*ing the*. !ut itsel) is !uilt recisely on ?sa'age@ and ?!ar!aric@ grounds.

,hich trans)er to the shere o) the unconscious. !ut there is not only no,here to escae)ro* this. !ut. on the contrary. they ac9uire unli*ited o,er o'er *an. to a large extent recisely !ecause they are thought to !e o'erco*e. and e'en nonBexistent$ This exlains thestri"ing di))erence !et,een the historical ractices o) nations and societies. )ull o) ,ar)are.oression. cruelty. and ,ild out!ursts o) terror. a!ounding in aggra'ating sychologicaldisorders. and the retensions o) reason to a har*onious. eace)ul and enlightenedexistence under the shado, o) rogress and de'elo*ent$ n this resect. the *odern era isnot only not an excetion !ut also the ea" o) the intensi)ication o) this discreancy !et,een the retensions o) reason and the !loody reality o) ,orld ,ars. ethnic cleansing.and the historically unrecedented *ass genocides o) entire races and narodi [=#)]$ And inter*s o) sa'agery. *odernity ossesses the *ost er)ect technical *eans in'ented !yci'ilisation. right u to ,eaons o) *ass destruction$

Thus. the critical tradition. structuralis* and the hilosohy o) ost*odernity )orceone to *o'e )ro* the *ainly diachronic +hased- interretation o) ci'ilisation. ,hich ,asthe nor* )or the (ineteenth century and ,hich. !y inertia. continues to !e ,idely in use. tothe synchronic$ The synchronic aroach assu*es that ci'ilisation co*es not instead o)sa'agery or !ar!arity. not a)ter the*. !ut together ,ith the* and continues to coexist ,iththe*$ One can i*agine ci'ilisation as the nu*erator. and sa'ageryB!ar!aris* as thedeno*inator o) a conditional )raction$ %i'ilisation a))ects consciousness. !ut theunconscious. through the unceasing ?,or" o) drea*s@ +Freud-.J1C: constantly*isinterrets e'erything in its )a'our$ Sa'agery is that ,hich exlains ci'ilisation. and isthe "ey to it$ t turns out that *an hurried to roclai* ?ci'ilisation@ as that ,hich alreadyactually haened. ,hile it re*ains not *ore than an inco*lete lan. constantly su))eringdisrution under the onslaught o) the cunning energies o) the unconscious +ho,e'er ,e*ight understand it as (ietHschean ?,ill to o,er@. or sychoanalytically-$

The (econstruction of Ci2ilisation

5o,. in ractice. can one aly the structuralist aroach )or the deconstruction o)the concet o) ci'ilisation7 n co*liance ,ith the general logic o) this oeration. oneshould su!ect to dou!t the irre'ersi!ility and no'elty o) that ,hich constitutes the !asiccharacteristics o) ci'ilisation. in contrast ,ith sa'agery and !ar!arity$

The *ain characteristic o) ci'ilisation is o)ten thought to !e an inclusi'euni'ersality that is. the theoretical oenness o) the ci'ilisational code )or those ,ho ,ouldli"e to oin it )ro* ,ithout$ nclusi'e uni'ersality is. at )irst glance. the co*lete antithesiso) exclusi'e articularity. the ri*ary characteristic o) tri!al and ancestral societies o) the reBci'ilisational eriod$ ut the historical retensions o) ci'ilisation to uni'ersality Iecu*enicalis*. and. corresondingly. uni9ueness I constantly ushed against the )act that. !esides the ?!ar!arian@ nations. !eyond the !orders o) such a ci'ilisation. there existed other ci'ilisations. ,ith their o,n uni9ue and di))erent 'ariants o) uni'ersalis*$ n this case. a



logical contradiction ,as laced !e)ore ci'ilisation either one *ust ad*it that the retension to uni'ersality ro'es groundless. or one *ust include the other ci'ilisation+s- inthe category o) !ar!arians$ 6hile recognising this groundlessness. 'arious decisions can also )ollo, either totry to )ind a syncretic *odel o) the uni)ication o) !oth ci'ilisations +at least in theory- into a

general syste*. or to ad*it the correctness o) the other ci'ilisation$ As a rule. incon)ronting such a ro!le*. ?ci'ilisation@ acts on the !asis o) an exclusi'e +not inclusi'e- rincile. and considers the other ci'ilisation de)ecti'e that is. ?!ar!aric@. ?heretical@. or?articular@$ n other ,ords. ,e are dealing ,ith the trans)er o) the re'iously tri!alethnocentris* to a higher le'el o) generalisation$ nclusi'ity and uni'ersalis*. in ractice.turn into a )a*iliar exclusi'ity and articularis* that is usually attri!uted to sa'agery$

This is easy to recognise in the )ollo,ing. stri"ing exa*les the <ree"s.considering the*sel'es as a ci'ilisation. nu*!ered e'eryone else a*ong the !ar!arians$The origin o) the ,ord ?!ar!arian@ is the ono*atoeic eorati'e. signi)ying hi* ,hoseseech *a"es no sense and is a !undle o) ani*al sounds$ #any tri!es ha'e a si*ilarrelationshi to *e*!ers o) a di))erent tri!e not understanding their language. they thin"the others ha'e no language at all conse9uently. they do not consider the* eole$ Fro*here. incidentally. is deri'ed the Sla'ic tri!al na*e nemtsie +<er*ans-. that is nemie +du*!.silent. *ute-. )or those ,ho do not "no, ,hat anyone calling hi*sel) a *an should "no,the Russian language$

A*ong the ancient Persians. ,ho reresented recisely a ci'ilisation ,ith retensions to the uni'ersality in the )or* o) their #aHdian religion. this ,as exressede'en *ore clearly di'ision into 6ran +eole- and Turan +de*ons- ,as dra,n on the le'elo) religion. cults. rites and ethics$ The *atter ca*e to the oint o) the a!solutising o)endogenous relations and the nor*alisation o) incest. in order that the solar sun o) the 6ranians +Ahura #aHda- ,ould not !e ro)aned !y the i*urities o) the sons o) AngraB#ainyu$

3udais* as a ,orld religion. ha'ing retensions to uni'ersalis* and ha'ing laid thetheological )oundations o) *onotheis* I !oth )or %hristianity and )or sla*. ,hich ,erede'eloed !y a )e, ci'ilisations si*ultaneously I is. to this day. al*ost ethnically li*itedto the !loodBtri!es !y the ;alakhah.[=#<]

The tri!al syste* is !ased on initiation. in the course o) ,hich the neohyte isin)or*ed a!out the )oundations o) the tri!al *ythology$ On the ci'ilisational le'el. thissa*e )unction is layed !y religious institutions and in co*arati'ely later eochs. !y thesyste* o) co**on education. *ade deli!erately ideological$ (eohytes learn the *yths o)*odernity in other conditions and under another 'eneer. !ut their )unctional 'alue re*ainsconstant. ,hile their )oundation +i) one ta"es into account the Freudian analysis o) thesu!stitutionBreression actions o) reason and the ?ego@- has not strayed )ar )ro* legend andtradition$

n a ,ord. e'en a rough deconstruction o) ci'ilisation sho,s that the clai*s too'erco*ing re'ious hases are illusions. ,hile in ractice. !ig and ?de'eloed@ collecti'eso) eole. united in a ci'ilisation. in essence si*ly reeat. on a di))erent le'el. thearchetyes o) the !eha'iour and *oral syste*s o) ?sa'ages@$ 5ence. endless and e'er !loodier ,ars. dou!le standards in international olitics. )its o) assion in ri'ate li)e. andthe constantly !ro"en ethical and nor*ati'e codes o) *oderate and rational societies$De'eloing Rousseau@s idea o) the ?no!le sa'age@ +Rousseau. !y the ,ay. sharly criticisedci'ilisation as a heno*enon and thought o) it as the source o) all e'il-. one can say that the



?ci'ilised@ *an is none other than the ?,ic"ed sa'age@. a de)ecti'e and er'erted?!ar!arian@$J1C=

The #ynchronic an! Plural n!erstan!in) of Ci2ilisation Pre2ails To!ay

6ith these reli*inary o!ser'ations. ,e can at last turn to that ,hich ,e includetoday in the concet o) ci'ilisation. ,hen ,e de'elo 5untington@sJ1C> thesis a!out ?theclash o) ci'ilisations@ or raise o!ections to it ,ith the exBPresident o) ran Khata*i.insisting uon ?a dialogue o) ci'ilisations@$ The 'ery )act that there is hardly any consensus in the use o) the ter* ?ci'ilisation@e'idently sho,s that the hased +urely historical or rogressi'e- interretation o) thatconcet. re'ailing in the *odern eoch. and generally acceted in the (ineteenth and )irsthal) o) the T,entieth centuries. has clearly lost its rele'ance today$ Only the *ost outdated researchers. ,ho are stuc" in the uncritical *odernity o)Kant or entha*.J1C can contrast ?ci'ilisation@ and ?!ar!arity@ today$ Although it isco*)orta!le to use the ter* ci'ilisation instru*entally in a historical analysis in thedescrition o) ancient tyes o) societies. still. it clearly lost its ideological charge as aglo!al ositi'e in co*arison ,ith a glo!al negati'e +!ar!aris* and sa'agery-$/ni'ersalis*. gradualness o) de'elo*ent. the anthroological unity o) hu*an history Ion the hilosohical le'el. all o) this has long !een ut into 9uestion$ y his studies instructural anthroology. !ased on the richest ethnograhic and *ythological *aterial o) theli)e o) (orth and South A*erican tri!es. Le'iBStrauss con'incingly sho,ed that theconcetual and *ythological syste*s o) those sa*e ?ri*iti'e@ societies. !y theirco*lexity. richness o) nuance. connections and )unctional ela!orations o) di))erentiations.are in no ,ay in)erior to those o) *ore ci'ilised countries$

n olitical discourse. there is still tal" o) ?the ri'ileges o) ci'ilisation@. !ut e'enthis already loo"s anachronistic$ 6e con)ronted such a si"e o) uncritical ignorance ,henli!eralBre)or*ers tried to resent the history o) Russia as a continuous chain o) unchec"ed !ar!arity in the )ace o) ?)lourishing@. ?reslendent@. and ?esta!lished@ 6estern ci'ilisation$5o,e'er. e'en this ,as not only an extraolation o) the !ra'adoB!ased. roagandistic retensions o) the 6est itsel) and a result o) the net,or" o) in)luence@s induction. !ut also a)or* o) Russian cargoBcults the )irst #cDonald@s. ri'ate !an"s and clis o) roc" !andssho,n on So'iet tele'ision ,ere ercei'ed as ?sacral o!ects@$

6ith the excetion o) these roagandistic sy*!ols or the hoeless !ac",ardnesso) uncritical hilosohers. in the )ra*e,or" o) an e'en distant )a*iliarity ,ithconte*orary hilosohy. still the concet o) ci'ilisation. in discourse that does notcontradict the *ainstrea*. is interreted ,ithout any *oral charge ,hatsoe'er. !ut is usedas a technical ter*. and i*lies not so*ething oosed to !ar!aris* and sa'agery. !ut toanother ci'ilisation$ n 5untington@s )a*ous and a)ore*entioned article. there is not a ,orda!out !ar!aris* he sea"s exclusi'ely o) the !orders. structures. eculiarities. )rictions anddi))erences o) 'arious ci'ilisations ,hich are oosed to each other$ And this )eature is oneo) not only those o) his ositions or lines o) argu*ent ste**ing )ro* Toyn!ee. ,ho*5untington clearly )ollo,s$ The use o) this ter* in the conte*orary context alreadysuggests a !latant luralis*. co*arati'is*. and. i) you li"e. synchronis*$ 5ere.



hilosohical criticis* and the reconsideration o) *odernity. i*le*ented in a thousanddi))erent ,ays in the course o) the ,hole T,entieth century. are i**ediately i*act)ul$ And so. i) ,e dis*iss the recurrences o) uncritical li!eralis* and the narro,B*inded na\'ety o) roBA*erican and roB6estern roaganda. ,e ,ill see that today theter* ci'ilisation. in oerational and acti'e olitical analysis. is used a!o'e all

synchronically and )unctionally. in order to designate ,ide and sta!le geograhical andcultural Hones. united !y aroxi*ately co**on siritual. *oral. stylistic and sychological arrange*ents and historical exerience$ %i'ilisation in the context o) the T,entyB)irst century signi)ies recisely this a Honeo) the steady and rooted in)luence o) a de)inite socialBcultural style. *ost o)ten +though notnecessarily- coinciding ,ith the !orders o) the di))usion o) the ,orld religions$ And the olitical )or*ation o) searate seg*ents entering into a ci'ilisation can !e rather di))erentci'ilisations. as a rule. are !roader than one go'ern*ent. and can consist o) so*e or e'en*any countries *oreo'er. the !orders o) so*e ci'ilisations cross countries. di'iding the*in arts$ ). in Anti9uity. ?ci'ilisations@ *ost o)ten coincided ,ith e*ires. and ,ere in one,ay or another olitically united. then today their !orders corresond to in'isi!le lines.irrele'antly sueri*osed onto the ad*inistrati'e !orders o) go'ern*ents$ So*e o) thesego'ern*ents ,ere ne'er a art o) a single e*ire +)or instance. sla* sread al*oste'ery,here in the con9uests o) the Ara!s ,ho !uilt the ,orld %alihate-$ Others did notshare a co**on statehood. !ut ,ere united a*ong the*sel'es in di))erent ,aysreligiously. culturally or racially$

The Crisis of Classical o!els of istorical Analysis ClassicalB conomicB

iberalB &acial

6e ha'e esta!lished that. in the use o) the ter* ci'ilisation in the T,entieth centuryand in the )ra*e,or" o) criticis*s o) *odernity. there occurred a 9ualitati'e shi)t to theside o) synchronicity and lurality$ ut can one ta"e a ste )urther and atte*t tounderstand ,hy. in )act. this ,ord usage !eca*e so toical in recisely our ti*e7 ndeed.the earlier concet o) ci'ilisation ,as not a su!ect o) deli!erate ro!le*atisation. ,hile it,as custo*ary only )or hu*anitarian and acade*ic circles to thin" in ter*s o) such acategory$ Other aroaches I econo*ic. national. racial. classB!ased I do*inated in olitical and. closely related to it. olitical science discourse$ Today ,e see that to thin"only in ter*s o) econo*ics. to sea" o) national go'ern*ents and national interests. and*ore so. to ut class analysis or the racial aroach at the head o) one@s analysis. is less andless acceta!le$ And on the contrary. it is rare that so*e state*ent or seech o) a oliticalactor asses !y ,ithout a *ention o) the ,ord ci'ilisation. to say nothing o) olitical andanalytic texts. ,here this ter* is erhas *ost re'alent$ 6ith 5untington. in )act. ,e see the atte*t to *a"e ci'ilisation the central *o*ento) olitical. historical and strategic analysis$ 6e are clearly on our ,ay to thin"ing in ter*so) ci'ilisations$ 5ere ,e should loo" *ore attenti'ely at that ,hich. recisely in the *ain 'ersionso) olitical science discourse. su!stitutes itsel) )or ?ci'ilisation@$ To sea" seriously o) racesis not acceta!le a)ter the tragic history o) Euroean )ascis*$ %lassB!ased analysis in the



*ainstrea* !eca*e irrele'ant a)ter the )all o) socialis* and the !rea"Bu o) the /SSR$ Andat that *o*ent. it see*ed that the sole aradig* o) olitical science ,ould !e li!eralis*$#ean,hile. the i*ression gre, that the national !orders o) ho*ogenous. essentiallyli!eralBde*ocratic go'ern*ents. no longer con)ronting any "ind o) syste*atic alternati'eslaying clai* to a lanetary scoe +a)ter the )all o) #arxis*-. ,ould soon !e a!olished. and

a ,orld leadershi and a oneB,orld go'ern*ent ,ould !e esta!lished ,ith a ho*ogenous*ar"et econo*y. arlia*entary de*ocracy +,orld arlia*ent-. a li!eral syste* o) 'aluesand a co**on in)rastructure o) in)or*ation technology$ n 1CC0. Francis Fu"uya*ae*erged as the herald o) such a ,onder)ul ne, ,orld in his olicy !oo". The -nd o% ;istory and the ast 9an$ Fu"uya*a !rought the de'elo*ent o) the hased interretationo) the concet o) ci'ilisation to its logical conclusion the end o) history. in his 'ersion.signi)ied the )inal de)eat o) ci'ilisation o'er !ar!aris* in all its )or*s. guises and 'ariants$ 5untington argued ,ith Fu"uya*a. ad'ancing as his *ain argu*ent the )act that theend o) the oosition o) the clearlyBde)ined ideologies o) *odernity +#arxis* andLi!eralis*- in no ,ay signi)ied the auto*atic integration o) hu*anity into a uni)ied li!eralutoia. inas*uch as under the )or*al constructions o) national go'ern*ents and ideologicalca*s ,ere )ound dee tectonic lates as it ,ere I continents o) collecti'eunconsciousness. ,hich. as soon !eca*e clear. ,ere !y no *eans o'erco*e !y*odernisation. colonisation. ideologisation and enlighten*ent. and as !e)ore. redeter*ined the *ost i*ortant asects o) li)e I including olitics. econo*ics andgeoolitics I in one or another seg*ent o) hu*an society according to their !elonging to aci'ilisation$

n other ,ords. 5untington roosed to introduce the concet ?ci'ilisation@ as a)unda*ental ideological concet. and called )or the relace*ent not only o) the classB!asedanalysis. !ut also o) the li!eral utoia. ,hich too" too earnestly and uncritically the roagandistic de*agoguery o) the %old 6ar. and thus !eca*e. in its turn. its 'icti*$%aitalis*. the *ar"et. li!eralis*. and de*ocracy see* uni'ersal and co**only hu*anonly externally$ Each ci'ilisation reinterrets its su!stance in accordance ,ith its o,nunconscious te*lates. ,here religion. culture. language and sychology lay a *assi'eand o)ten decisi'e role$

n this context. ci'ilisation ac9uires a central signi)icance in the analysis o) oliticalscience. steing into )irst lace and relacing ,ith itsel) the clichNs o) the li!eral Gulgate$ The un)olding o) e'ents in the 1CC0s sho,s that 5untington ro'ed in this argu*entto !e closer to the truth. and Fu"uya*a hi*sel) is o!liged in art to reconsider his 'ie,s.ha'ing ad*itted that he e'idently so"e too soon$ ut this 'ery re'ision !y Fu"uya*a o)the thesis o) ?the end o) history@ de*ands a *ore thorough reconsideration$

The #te. +ac4 of the iberal to.ians$ #tate +uil!in)

The ro!le* is that Fu"uya*a. analyHing the discreancy o) his redictions a!out?the end o) history@ through the ris* o) the glo!al 'ictory o) li!eralis* still tried to stay inthe )ra*e,or" o) that logic. )ro* ,hich he at )irst roceeded$ %onse9uently. he needed toi*le*ent a oneBti*e reality chec" and to turn aside )ro* that. in order to ad*it thecorrectness o) his oonent 5untington. ,ho. in his )orecast. ro'ed !y all signs closer tothe truth$ Then Fu"uya*a *ade the )ollo,ing concetual *o'e he roosed to de)er the



end o) history to an inde)inite date. and *ean,hile to engage in the strengthening o) thosesocioBolitical structures that ,ere the nucleus o) the li!eral ideology in its re'ious stages$Fu"uya*a ad'anced a ne, thesis ?stateB!uilding@$ As an inter*ediate stage )or thetransition to glo!al go'ern*ent and ,orld leadershi. he reco**ended strengtheningnational go'ern*ents ,ith a li!eral econo*y and de*ocratic syste* o) rule. in order to

*ore )unda*entally and ro)oundly ,or" the soil )or the )inal 'ictory o) ,orld li!eralis*and glo!alisation$ This is not a reection o) the ersecti'e this is its ostone*ent untilthe inde)inite )uture ,ith a concrete roosition concerning the inter*ediate stage$

Fu"uya*a says al*ost nothing a!out the concet o) ci'ilisation. !ut clearly ta"esinto account 5untington@s theses. indirectly resonding to hi* the steady de'elo*ent o)national go'ern*ents. ,hich ro'ed cra*ed !oth in the eoch o) colonisation. in theeoch o) nationalBli!eration *o'e*ents. and in the eoch o) the ideological oosition o)the t,o ca*s. *ust no, roceed in due course$ t is this ,hich ,ill lead gradually todi))erent societies adoting the *ar"et. de*ocracy and hu*an rights. urooting the re*ainso) the unconscious and rearing a *ore )ailBsa)e +than no,- soil )or glo!alisation$

Thomas +arnetts The %orl! as Net"or4

n A*erican olitical science and )oreign olicy analysis. there also exists a ne, ro*ulgation o) a urely glo!al theory. resented this ti*e in the essays o) Tho*as arnett$J1CC The *eaning o) this concetion co*es do,n to this that technological de'elo*entesta!lishes a Honal di'ision o) all territories on Earth into three regions the core. the Honeo) connectedness. and the Hone o) disconnectedness$ arnett thin"s that net,or" rocesses)reely enetrate through !orders. go'ern*ents and ci'ilisations. and structure the strategicsace o) the ,orld in their o,n ,ay$ The /SA and Euroean /nion are the core there areconcentrated all the codes o) the ne, technologies and the decisionB*a"ing centres$ The*aority o) other countries. doo*ed to a ?user@ relationshi to the net,or". constitute the?Hone o) connectedness@ +they are co*elled to use readyB*ade technological *eans and toadust to the rules that are ,or"ed out !y the core-$ To the ?Hone o) disconnectedness@ !elong the countries and olitical )orces that ha'e stood u in direct oosition to the /SA.the 6est and glo!alisation$J200

For Tho*as arnett +as )or Daniel ell-. ?technology is )ate@ in it is e*!odied the9uintessence o) ci'ilisation. understood urely technologically. al*ost as ,ith Sengler. !ut,ith a ositi'e sign$

The American @ie" of the %orl! #ystem Three @ersions

n A*erican olitical analysis I and ,e *ust recognise that it is recisely theA*ericans ,ho set the tone in this region I all three concetions o) the searation o)su!ects on the *a o) the ,orld coBexist$ <lo!alis* and ci'ilisation +in a singular sense-.in the sirit o) Fu"uya*a@s earlier ideas. are re)lected in arnett@s constructions$ 5ere. onlythe core is recognised as a su!ect the rest is su!ect to external direction. that is. to deB



su!ecti'isation and deBso'ereignisation$ Fu"uya*a hi*sel). critically exa*ining his earlier. oti*istic state*ents. ta"es aninter*ediate osition. insisting that one *ust. )or so*e ti*e longer. recognise ?nationalgo'ern*ents@ as a su!ect. the de'elo*ent o) ,hich *ust reare a *ore secure ground)or the co*ing glo!alis*$

And )inally. 5untington and the suorters o) his aroach thin" that ci'ilisationsare excessi'ely grand and )oundational realities. ,hich can ,ell lay clai* to the status o) !eing the glo!al su!ects o) ,orld olitics$ 6hen the re'ious ideological *odelscollased. national go'ern*ents started to lose. in leas and !ounds. the real stu)) o)so'ereignty under the in)luence o) the searate. e))ecti'e asects o) glo!alisation. !utglo!alisation itsel). ,hile !rea"ing old !orders. ,as and is una!le to actually enetrate intothe deths o) societies ,ith settled traditional co*onents$ t is signi)icant that those )orces in the ,orld ,hich stri'e to sli a,ay )ro*glo!alisation. 6esternisation and A*erican hege*ony in order to reser'e and strengthenane, their traditional identity hold to recisely 5untington@s thesis$ Only in lace o) thegloo*y. catastrohic discourse o) 5untington concerning ?collision@ and ?con)lict@. theystarted tal"ing a!out ?dialogue@$ ut this al*ost roagandistic. *oralistic nuance shouldnot lead us into a *isunderstanding concerning the *ost i*ortant tas" o) those ,holargely accet 5untington@s *odel$ n the )irst lace. this is the ranian President Khata*i@s$ uxtaositioning o) ?collision@ or ?dialogue@ I the 9uestion is secondary and ractical*uch *ore i*ortant is the rinciled agree*ent that recisely ci'ilisation !eco*es todaythe )oundational. concetual analytic su!ect o) international olitics$ n other ,ords. in contrast to !oth glo!alistB*axi*alists +li"e arnett- and to*oderate li!eralBstatists. the suorters o) the ci'ilisational *ethod exlicitly or i*licitlyta"e their stand on the osition o) a structuralist. hilosohical aroach to theunderstanding o) ,orld rocesses$ The *ar"ing out o) ci'ilisation as the )oundational su!ect. ole and actor o)conte*orary ,orld olitics is the *ost ro*ising ideological aroach. !oth )or those,ho ,ant to o!ecti'ely e'aluate the real state o) a))airs in ,orld olitics. )or those ,ho arestri'ing to select an ade9uate tool"it )or olitical science@s generalisations o) the ne,eoch. the eoch o) ost*odernity. and )or those ,ho are stri'ing to de)end their o,nuni9ue identity in the conditions o) a rogressi'e !lending and also o) the real attac"s o)net,or" glo!alisation$ n other ,ords. the aeal to ci'ilisations allo,s one to organically)ill the ideological 'acuu* that ,as )or*ed a)ter the historical crisis o) all theories that hadoosed li!eralis*. and also a)ter the internal crisis o) li!eralis* itsel). ,hich ,as una!leto handle the guardianshi o) the conte*orary ,orld sace. as the un)ortunate exerienceo) Fu"uya*a@s utoia con)ir*s$ %i'ilisation as a concet construed in the conte*orary hilosohical context ro'es to !e the centre o) a ne, ideology$ This ideology can !e descri!ed as *ultiBolarity$

The #cantiness of the *!eolo)ical Arsenal of ?..onents of >lobalism an! the

ni.olar %orl!

Oosition to glo!alis*. ,hich announces itsel) e'er *ore loudly on all le'els andin all corners o) the lanet. has not yet )or*ed into a concrete syste* o) 'ie,s$ n this is the,ea"ness o) the antiBglo!alist *o'e*ent it is unsyste*atic and deri'ed o) ideologicalorderliness atchy and chaotic ele*ents re'ail in it. *ost o)ten reresenting an



inarticulate *ixture o) anarchis*. irrele'ant Le)tis*. ecology and e'en *ore extra'agantand *arginal ideas$ n it. thirdBrate losers o) 6estern gauchis*J201 lay clai* to theleading roles$ n other cases. glo!alisation collides ,ith resistance )ro* the side o) nationalgo'ern*ents. ,hich do not ,ish to gi'e o'er art o) their so'ereign authority to externalcontrol$ And )inally. the reresentati'es o) traditional religion. as ,ell as suorters o)

ethnic and religious indeendence. acti'ely resist glo!alisation and its AtlanticB6esternli!eralBde*ocratic code. its net,or"ed nature and its 'alue syste* +indi'idualis*.hedonis*. laxity- ,e see this esecially clearly in the sla*ic ,orld$ These three existing le'els o) oosition to glo!alisation and A*erican hege*onyare una!le to lead to the de'elo*ent o) a general strategy and distinct ideology. ,hich,ould !e a!le to unite di))erent and disconnected )orces. at ti*es inco*ara!le in scale andoriented in contrary ,ays in relation to local ro!le*s$ The antiBglo!alist *o'e*ent su))ers)ro* ?the disease o) in)antile Le)tis*@ and is !loc"ed !y the exerience o) a ,hole series o) de)eats su))ered !y the glo!al Le)tist *o'e*ent in the last century$ (ational go'ern*ents.as a rule. do not ha'e enough o) a scoe to thro, do,n a challenge to the highly de'eloedtechnological *ight o) the 6est !esides. their olitical and esecially econo*ic elites areco*letely in'ol'ed in transnational roects. deendent on that 'ery 6est ,hile local.ethnic and religious *o'e*ents and co**unities. although they can. at certain *o*ents. ro'e to !e an e))ecti'e oosition to glo!alisation. are too uncoordinated to count on inearnest )or a change in the )oundational trends o) the ,orld. or e'en )or a correction o)course$

The eanin) of the Conce.t Ci2ilisation in ?..osition to >lobalisation

n such a situation. the concet o) ci'ilisation co*es to hel as a )unda*entalcategory )or the organisation o) a )ullB!lo,n alternati'e roect on a ,orld scale$ ) one utsthis concet at the centre o) attention. then one can )ind a !asis )or a har*onic resonance o) align*ent o) !road go'ern*ental. u!lic. social and olitical )orces into a general syste*$One can unite under the !anner o) a *ultilicity o) ci'iliHations. eoles. and religious andethnic co**unities li'ing under 'arious go'ern*ents. o))ering the* a co**on. centralisedidea +in the )ra*e,or" o) a concrete ci'ilisation- and lea'ing the* *any choices )or thehunt )or identity inside it. allo,ing )or the coexistence o) ci'ilisations. di))ering accordingto their )unda*ental ara*eters$

And such a ersecti'e a!solutely does not necessarily lead to a ?clash o)ci'ilisations@. 5untington not,ithstanding$ 5ere !oth con)licts and alliances are ossi!le$The *ost i*ortant thing is that a *ultiBolar ,orld. e*erging in such an instance. ,illcreate the real reconditions )or the continuation o) the olitical history o) *an"ind.inas*uch as it ,ill nor*ati'ely a))ir* a 'ariety o) socioolitical. religious. *oral.econo*ic and cultural syste*s$ Other,ise. si*le and soradic oosition to glo!alis* ona local le'el or on !ehal) o) an ideologically a*orhous *ass o) antiBglo!alists +and that inthe !est case- ,ill only ostone this@end@. and ,ill ut the !ra"es on its onset. !ut ,ill not !eco*e a real alternati'e$

To"ar! ar)e #.aces



The selection o) ci'ilisation as the su!ect o) ,orld olitics in the T,entyB)irstcentury ,ill allo, one to conduct ?regional glo!alisation@. a uni)ication !et,een the*sel'eso) countries and narodi. relating to one and the sa*e ci'ilisation$ This ,ill allo, one to

*a"e use o) the !ene)it o) social oenness. not in relation to e'eryone si*ultaneously. !utrather in the )irst lace to those ,ho !elong to a co**on ci'ilisational tye$An exa*le o) such integration along ci'ilisational criteria is a))orded !y the ne,

suraBnational olitical organisation o) the Euroean /nion$ t is a rototye o) ?regionalglo!alisation@. including in its !oundaries those countries and cultures that ha'e a co**onculture. history and 'alueBsyste*$ ut. ha'ing ad*itted the undou!ted right o) Euroeansto )or* a ne, olitical su!ect on the !asis o) their o,n ci'ilisational di))erences. it israther natural to ad*it an analogical rocess in the sla*ic. %hinese. Eurasian. LatinA*erican. and the A)rican ci'ilisations$ A)ter %arl Sch*itt. it is custo*ary in olitical science to call analogical roects o)integration ?large saces@$J202 n econo*ics. e'en !e)ore Sch*itt. this ,as theoreticallyunderstood and e*loyed in ractice ,ith colossal success !y the creator o) the *odel o)the <er*an ?custo*s union@. Friedrich 'on List$J208 The ?large sace@ is a di))erent na*e)or that. ,hich ,e understand !y ?ci'ilisation@ in its geoolitical. satial and cultural senses$The ?large sace@ di))ers )ro* other existing national go'ern*ents recisely in that it is !uilt on the )oundation o) a co**on 'alue syste* and historical "inshi. and it also uni)iesa )e, or e'en a *ultitude o) di))erent go'ern*ents. tied together !y a ?co**unity o) )ate@$n 'arious large saces. the integrating )actor can 'ary so*e,here it ,ill !e religionso*e,here ethnic origin so*e,here. cultural )or* so*e,here. the socioolitical tyeso*e,here. geograhic osition$ An i*ortant recedent the creation o) a Euroean /nion sho,s that thee*!odi*ent o) the ?large sace@ in ractice. the transition )ro* a go'ern*ent to a suraBgo'ern*ental esta!lish*ent. !uilt on the )oundation o) ci'ilisational co**onality. is ossi!le. constructi'e and. desite all internal ro!le*s. ositi'ely un)olds in reality$

A &e)ister of Ci2ilisations

n contrast to national go'ern*ents. it is ossi!le to argue a!out the nu*!er and !orders !et,een ci'ilisations$ 5untington searates out the )ollo,ing 1$ 6estern. 2$ %on)ucian +%hinese-. 8$ 3aanese. :$ sla*ic. ;$ ndian. =$ Sla'icBOrthodox. >$ Latin A*erican. and ossi!ly.

$ A)rican ci'ilisations$

5o,e'er. so*e considerations )orce the*sel'es on us$ 5untington includes the



/SA and %anada in 6estern ci'ilisation ,ith Euroe$ 5istorically this is accurate. !uttoday. )ro* a geoolitical oint o) 'ie,. they constitute in relation to one another t,odi))erent ?large saces@. the strategic. econo*ic and e'en geoolitical interests o) ,hichdi'erge e'er *ore and *ore$ Euroe has t,o identities the ?Atlantic@ +)or ,hich it isentirely )air to identi)y Euroe and (orth A*erica- and the ?%ontinental@ +,hich. on the

contrary. is strongly attracted to the construction o) indeendent olicies and to the returno) Euroe to history as an indeendent layer. and not as a *ere *ilitary !eachhead )or its (orth A*erican ?younger !rother@-$ Euroatlantis* has its head9uarters in England and the countries o) Eastern Euroe+,hich are *o'ed !y an inertial Russoho!ia-. ,hile Eurocontinentalis* has its in Franceand <er*any. ,ith the suort o) Sain and taly +this is classic Old Euroe-$ Theci'ilisation is. in any case. one. 6estern. !ut its ?large saces@. it *ay !e. ,ill !e organisedso*e,hat di))erently$ y Sla'icBOrthodox ci'ilisation it is *ore accurate to understand Eurasianci'ilisation. to ,hich !elong historically. organically and culturally not only the Sla's andnot only the Orthodox. !ut also other ethnicities +including the Tur"s. %aucasians.Si!erians. and so on- and a signi)icant ortion o) the oulation ro)essing sla*$ The sla*ic ,orld itsel). undou!tedly. united religiously ,ith the constantlygro,ing a,areness o) its o,n identity. in its turn is searated into a )e, ?large saces@ ?theAra! ,orld@. ?the Hone o) continental sla*@ +ran. A)ghanistan. Pa"istan- and the di))usiono) sla* in the Paci)ic region$ A secial lace in this icture is occuied !y the #usli*s o)A)rica. !ut also !y the constantly gro,ing co**unities o) Euroe and A*erica$ And.ne'ertheless. sla* is recisely a ci'ilisation. *ore and *ore recognising its eculiarity andits di))erence )ro* other ci'ilisations. and in the )irst lace )ro* li!eralB6esternci'ilisation. ,hich has !een acti'ely treading uon the sla*ic ,orld in the course o)glo!alisation$

t is co*licated to esta!lish !orders !et,een the Hones o) in)luence o) 3aaneseand %hinese ci'ilisation in the Paci)ic region. ,hose ci'ilisational identity re*ains oen toa signi)icant degree$

And. o) course. it is di))icult )or no, to sea" o) a co**on consciousness o) theinha!itants o) the A)rican continent. although in the )uture this situation *ight change.inas*uch as in the resent rocess there is at any rate historical recedent. such as in theA)rican /nion.J20: !ut also in the existence o) a PanBA)rican idea$ The gro,ing inti*acy !et,een the countries o) Latin A*erica in recent years ise'ident. esecially considering the )act o) (orth A*erican ressure. although it is too early)or no, to sea" o) rocesses o) integration$ There are no existing !arriers at all to the integration o) the Eurasian exansearound Russia. inas*uch as these Hones ,ere olitically. culturally. econo*ically. sociallyand sychologically united during the course o) *any centuries$ The 6estern !order o) theEurasianist ci'ilisation goes so*e,hat *ore East o) the 6estern !order o) the /"raine.*a"ing that ne,lyB)or*ulated go'ern*ent a %ortiori )ragile and not 'ia!le$ Essentially. the enu*eration o) ci'ilisations gi'es us an idea o) the 9uantity o) olesin a *ultiBolar ,orld$ All o) the* I !esides the 6est I d,ell. so )ar. in a otentialcondition. !ut at the sa*e ti*e each o) these ci'ilisations has serious. i*ressi'e groundsto *o'e to,ard integration and to !eco*e a )ullB)ledged su!ect o) the history o) theT,entyB)irst century$



The ulti-.olar *!eal

The idea o) a *ultiBolar ,orld. ,here the oles ,ill !e as *any as there are

ci'ilisations. allo,s one to roose to hu*anity a !road choice o) cultural. aradig*atic.social and siritual alternati'es$ 6e shall ha'e a *odel ,ith the a'aila!ility o) ?regionaluni'ersalis*@ in concrete ?large saces@. ,hich ,ill gi'e to enor*ous Hones and signi)icantseg*ents o) hu*anity an una'oida!le social dyna*ic. characteristic o) glo!alisation andoenness. !ut ,ithout those shortco*ings that glo!alisation has ta"en on a glo!al scale$#oreo'er. in such a syste*. regionalis* and the autono*ous and indeendent de'elo*ento) local. ethnic and religious co**unities can !e de'eloed at )ull seed. inas*uch as the*ore uni)ying ressure. characteristic o) national go'ern*ents. ,ea"ens considera!ly +,esee this in the Euroean /nion. ,here integration considera!ly )acilitates the de'elo*ento) local co**unes and so called Euroregions-$J20; n addition. ,e shall !e a!le at last todecide the )unda*ental contradiction !et,een exclusi'is* and inclusi'is* o) the ?i*erial@identity the lanet ,ill resent itsel) not as one. sole oecumene[2>?] +,ith the inherent?cultural racis*@ o) this solitariness in the distri!ution o) the titles o) ?ci'ilised nations@. asoosed to ?!ar!arians@ and ?sa'ages@- !ut as a )e, oecumenes. a )e, ?hea'ens@. ,herethere ,ill li'e sideB!yBside in their rhyth*. in their context. in their o,n ti*e. ,ith theiro,n consciousness and unconsciousness. not one ?hu*anity@. !ut a )e,$ t is i*ossi!le to say !e)orehand ho, relations !et,een the* ,ill turn out$ Surely. !oth dialogue and collisions ,ill e*erge$ ut so*ething else is *ore i*ortant history,ill continue. and ,e ,ill return )ro* that )unda*ental historical deadBend to ,hichuncritical )aith in rogress. rationality and the gradual de'elo*ent o) hu*anity dro'e us$ So*ething in *an changes ,ith ti*e. !ut so*ething re*ains eternal and in'aria!le$%i'ilisation allo,s one to strictly de'elo e'erything in its lace$ Reason and the hilosohical. social. olitical. and econo*ic syste*s created !y it ,ill !e a!le to de'eloaccording to their o,n lines. ,hile the collecti'e unconscious ,ill )reely reser'e itsarchetyes. its !asis and in'iola!ility$ #oreo'er. in e'ery ci'ilisation. !oth rationality andthe unconscious can a))ir* their o,n standards. secure their correctness. and strengthenthe* or change the* according to its o,n discretion$ There ,ill !e no uni'ersal standard. neither in the *aterial nor in the siritualasect$ Each ci'ilisation ,ill at last recei'e the right to )reely roclai* that ,hich is.according to its ,ishes. the *easure o) things$ So*e,here that ,ill !e *an. so*e,herereligion. so*e,here ethics. so*e,here *aterialis*$ ut in order that the roect o) *ultiBolarity can realise itsel). ,e *ust still sur'i'e*ore than a )e, s"ir*ishes$ And in the )irst lace. it is necessary to get the !etter o) the)irst and )ore*ost ene*y glo!alisation. the stri'ing o) the Atlantic 6estern ole to hang itsuniolar hege*ony on all the nations and countries on Earth$ Desite the dee and sureo!ser'ations o) its o,n !est intellectuals. *any reresentati'es o) the oliticalesta!lish*ent o) the /SA continue as !e)ore to use the ter* ?ci'ilisation@ in a singularsense. understanding !y it ?A*erican ci'ilisation@$ This is the real challenge. to ,hich allnations o) the Earth. and Russians *ost o) all. *ust gi'e an ade9uate resonse$



8 The Transformation of the eft in the T"enty-first Century

The eftist Philoso.hy in Crisis

*n contrast to the situation that ruled in the shere o) olitical ideas and roects onehundred years ago. to sea" o) the resence o) so*e "ind o) clearly deter*ined sace )orLe)tist +socialist or %o**unist- roects is no, i*ossi!le$ The ro!le* is that. at the endo) the T,entieth century. there occurred a )unda*ental crisis o) exectations. connected,ith Le)tist *o'e*ents. Le)tist ideas. Le)tist hilosohy and Le)tist olitics$ This is a!o'eall connected to the !rea"u o) the So'iet /nion and the )alling aart o) the socialist ca*.and also to the loss o) in)luence and restige o) Euroean #arxis*. ,hich at a seci)ic ti*e ractically !eca*e ?the reser'e ideology@ o) 6estern Euroe$

#oreo'er. e'en at the !est o) ti*es. the Le)tist roect ,as not so*ething uni)or*and uni'ersal. and the )ate o) Le)tist ideas in the concrete olitical ractice o) 'arious eoles sho,ed that. e'en )ro* a urely theoretical oint o) 'ie,. ,ithin the Le)tist olitical hilosohy itsel). 'arious )oundational tendencies exist. ,hich one should studysearately$

Le)tist olitical hilosohy )ro* the !eginning ,as thought o) as a )unda*ental.general and syste*atic criticis* o) li!eral caitalis*$ n the *iddle o) the T,entiethcentury. there arose the heno*enon o) a syste*atic criti9ue o) the Le)tist roect +!oth)ro* the side o) li!erals I 5aye". Poer. Aron. and so on. as ,ell as )ro* the side o) neoB#arxists and FreudianB#arxists- ,ith the Le)tist ideology itsel). the hilosohical schoolscarried out the sa*e thing that the Le)tist ideology carried out concerning li!eral caitalis*100. or 1;0 years ago$

Three @arieties of eftist *!eolo)y

Fro* the osition o) today@s historical exerience. one can identi)y three)oundational directions in Le)tist olitical hilosohy. ,hich either continue along a ne, !ranch o) re'ious ideological de'elo*ent. rethin" the ast. or o))er so*ething radicallyne,$ They are M The Old Le)t +French vetero,gauche- M Le)t (ationalists +(ational %o**unists. (ational olshe'i"s or (ational<auchists- M (e, Le)t +neoB<auchists. Post*oderns-$



The )irst t,o tendencies existed at the end o) the (ineteenth century and throughoutthe T,entieth century. and to so*e degree they are resent in today@s ,orld$ The thirdorientation aeared in the 1C;0s and 1C=0s and de'eloed out o) a criticis* o) the OldLe)tists. ,hich gradually aeared in the course o) ost*odernity and in)luenced theaesthetics. stylistics and hilosohy o) *odern 6estern society to a great extent$

The ?l! eft To!ay The +lin! Alley of ?rtho!o'y Pers.ecti2es of

2olutionary #trate)y an! Pro-iberal &e2isionism

The Old Le)t are no, di'ided into a )e, orientations M Orthodox #arxists M Social De*ocrats M PostBSocial De*ocrats +adherents o) the Third 6ay. along the lines o) <iddens-J20>

M Euroean Orthodox #arxists$

y inertia. they exist in Euroean countries and also in the /nited States and Third6orld countries. continuing to de)end the )oundational re*ises o) #arxist thought$ Theyare o)ten e*!odied in %o**unist arties. ro)essing the corresonding ideology$ n the*aority o) cases. those Orthodox #arxists so)ten +in the sirit o) Euroco**unis*-J20the radicality o) #arx@s teaching. reecting the call to a re'olutionary urising and theesta!lish*ent o) a dictatorshi o) the roletariat$ The *ost lasting )or* o) Orthodox#arxis* turned out to !e the Trots"yite *o'e*ent +the Fourth nternational-. ,hich ,asal*ost untouched !y the )all o) the /SSR and the !rea"u o) the So'iet syste*. so )ar as itinitially originated )ro* a hard criti9ue o) that syste*$ t is characteristic that the *ore orthodox )ollo,ers o) #arx *eet in those countries,here the roletarian. socialist re'olutions did not occur. although #arx hi*sel) redictedthat. recisely in the *ore de'eloed industrial countries ,ith a ,or"ing caitalistecono*y. these re'olutions ,ere destined to ta"e lace$ Euroean #arxis* in so*e senseacceted the )act that #arx and Engels@ redictions ,ere realised. not ,here !y all logicthey should ha'e !een realised. !ut on the contrary. ,here it ,as thought that they couldne'er !e realised under any conditions. such as Russia$ Reecting the So'iet exerience as ahistorical stretch. this 'ariety o) old Le)tists in ractice does not !elie'e in the success o)#arxist rohecies. !ut continues to de)end their 'ie,s rather as !eing )aith)ul ?in the*oral sense@ and ?to the ideological tradition@. rather than seriously counting on there'olutionary urising o) the roletariat +,ho. in the *odern 6estern ,orld. it see*s. nolonger exist as a class. to such a degree has it *erged ,ith the etty !ourgeoisie-$

The *ost i*ortant shortco*ing o) 6estern Orthodox #arxists consists in theircontinuing to oerate using the ter*s o) the industrial society at a ti*e ,hen 6esternEuroean and esecially A*erican society ha'e *o'ed to a 9ualitati'ely ne, stage. the ostBindustrial +in)or*ation- society. o) ,hich al*ost nothing is said in classical #arxis*.excluding the trou!led intuitions o) the young #arx a!out ?the real do*ination o) caital@$n the a!sence or )ailure o) the socialist re'olutions. this can co*e as a relace*ent o) ?the



)or*al do*ination o) caital@. characteristic o) the industrial age$ ut e'en these)rag*entary o!ser'ations o) the Orthodox #arxists. as a rule. do not sar" great interestand are not at the centre o) attention$

<radually. the rognostic and olitical *eaning o) such Orthodox #arxist discourseco*es to nought. and this *eans that to sea" o) their ideas as a ?roect@ I e'en ?a Le)tist

roect@ I is not ossi!le$ At the sa*e ti*e. their critical o!ser'ations concerning thecaitalist syste*. *oral 'ie,s. solidarity ,ith the un)ortunate and the criticis* o)li!eralis* can arouse de)inite interest and sy*athy$ The adherents o) this ersuasional*ost al,ays relate only ,ith distrust to other antiBli!eral theories. and are tyically closedto dialogue and are degenerating into a sect$

uro.ean #ocial (emocracy

Euroean Social De*ocrats di))er slightly )ro* Orthodox %o**unists$ This olitical current also deri'es )ro* #arxis*. !ut already in the eoch o) Kauts"yJ20C itselected not a re'olutionary. !ut an e'olutionary ath. reudiating radicalis* and lacing itsgoal in in)luencing olitics in the Le)tist *anner +social ustice. the ?,el)are state@. etc$- !y arlia*entary *eans and through organised la!our *o'e*ents$ This 'ersion o) the old Le)tachie'ed considera!le results in Euroean countries. ha'ing redeter*ined to a largedegree the socioolitical asect o) Euroean society. in shar contrast to the /nited States.,here. on the contrary. the Right li!eral doctrine undou!tedly re'ails$

The urose o) the Social De*ocratic orientation o) the old Le)t in our ti*e co*esdo,n to econo*ic theses. ,hich oose li!eral tendencies$ Social De*ocrats co*e out in)a'our o) 1- Progressi'e inco*e tax +li!erals )or )lat tax- 2- The nationalisation o) large *onoolies +li!erals )or ri'atisation- 8- The !roadening o) go'ern*ent resonsi!ility in the social sector :- Free *edicine. education. guaranteed ension lans +li!erals )or reducinggo'ern*ent in)luence in the econo*y. ri'ate *edicine. education and ension lans-$

Social De*ocrats try to realise these de*ands through arlia*entary electoral*echanis*s and. in critical situations. through the *o!ilisation o) la!our unions and socialorganisations. right u to stri"es$

t is signi)icant that )or Social De*ocrats. the characteristic slogans are li!ertarian+not to !e con)used ,ith li!eral- M The legalisation o) light narcotics M The rotection o) sexual and ethnic *inorities and ho*osexual *arriages M The !roadening o) indi'idual rights and ci'ic )reedo* M The de'elo*ent o) the institutions o) ci'il society M Ecology M The so)tening o) cri*inal enal codes +reealing caital unish*ent-. and so on$

%lassical Social De*ocrats co*!ine the de*ands o) Le)tist econo*ics +social



ustice. strengthening the role o) go'ern*ent- ,ith the !roadening o) ersonal rights andci'ic )reedo*s +?hu*an rights@-. the de'elo*ent o) de*ocracy. and internationalis*+today it is acceted to sea" o) ?*ulticulturalis*@ and ?glo!alisation@-$

The roect o) classical Social De*ocrats. directed to,ard the )uture. is thecontinuation o) such a olitics o) concrete stes along a socioolitical e'olution. in

argu*ent ,ith the Right I !oth ,ith li!erals in econo*ics. and ,ith nationalconser'ati'es in olitics$ #ost o)ten. classical Social De*ocrats are also M For rogress M For the !attle against archaic and religious reudices M For science and culture$

At the sa*e ti*e. there are no serious theoretical de'elo*ents regarding the ne,conditions o) ostBindustrial society discussed in this ca*. and !oth the criticis* o)classical #arxis* and the the*atisation o) caitalis* on the ne, historical stage +incontrast to the ost*odernists and ?the (e, Le)t@- are al*ost entirely a!sent )ro* the*$

#ocialists of the Thir! %ay

One *ore 'ersion o) the Old Le)t is an orientation o) Social De*ocrats. ,hich inthe )ace o) the e'ident usurge o) li!eral ideas in 1CC0B2000 decided to co*ro*ise ,ithli!erals$ The theoreticians o) this orientation +in articular. the English*an Anthony<iddens- called it the Third 6ay. so*ething !et,een classical Euroean Social De*ocracyand A*erican +*ore generally. AngloBSaxon- li!eralis*$ Proonents o) the Third 6ay roose to )ind a co*ro*ise !et,een Social De*ocrats and li!eral de*ocrats on the !asiso) their co**on ideological roots in the Enlighten*ent. and their co**on disli"e !oth o)conser'atis* and o) Le)tist extre*is*$ The lat)or* )or co*ro*ise is constructed inter*s o) gi'eBandBta"e relating to concrete arrange*ents concerning the extent to ,hichSocial De*ocrats agree to lo,er the rogressi'e tax in the direction o) the )lat tax. ,hileli!erals raise the latter in the direction o) the )or*er$ %oncerning the rights o) *an. there areno rincial disagree*ents !et,een the* a!out guaranteeing *inority rights or a!out*ulticulturalis* +i) ,e do not consider li!eral conser'ati'es. ,ho co*!ine the idea o) a )latinco*e tax ,ith conser'ati'e rinciles o) the )a*ily. *orals. and religion as A*ericanrights. such as the Reu!licans and ?neocons@-$ The urose o) the Third 6ay roect. according to <iddens. consists in thecooeration o) Social De*ocrats and li!erals in the construction o) a Euroean society.)ounding itsel) on a !roadening o) ersonal rights. reser'ation o) the institutions o) ri'ateo,nershi. and a *odi)ication o) the a!ility o) go'ern*ent to inter'ene and the *echanis*o) redistri!ution in each concrete instance. in deli!erately esta!lished li*its$ n contrast toclassical Social De*ocrats and e'en Euroean %o**unists. the adherents o) the Third 6ayrelate sy*athetically to the /SA and insist on strengthening the Atlantic alliance +,hereastyical Le)tists I !oth old and ne, I harshly criticise A*erica and A*erican society )orits li!eralis*. ine9uality and i*erialis*-$ ) there are real renegades a*ong the Le)tist *o'e*ents. then these are reciselythe )ollo,ers o) the Third 6ay$ (ext co*e )or*er Trots"yites +such as certain A*ericans



I the theoretical )ounders o) neoconser'atis* I or Euroeans. )or instance the head o)the Euroean %o**ission. the Portuguese arroso-.J210 ,ho changed their 'ie,s )ro*extre*e %o**unis* and re'olutionary socialis* )or a no less radical de)ence o)li!eralis*. the *ar"et and econo*ic ine9uality$ The Le)tist roect in the case o) Third 6ay socialists is to reser'e the status 9uo$

National Communism Conce.tual Para!o'esB *!eolo)ical *mbalancesB

#ubterranean ner)ies

(ational <auchis* should !e understood as a er)ectly uni9ue heno*enon$ ncontrast to Orthodox #arxis* and Social De*ocracy. this orientation is studied *uch less.and its correct decihering is a *atter )or the )uture$ The ro!le* is that (ational<auchis* al*ost ne'er arades its national co*onent. co'ering it u or e'en reudiatingit$ %onse9uently. the study o) the direct and honest discourse o) the (ational %o**unist*o'e*ents. arties or regi*es the*sel'es *ost o)ten !eco*es *ore di))icult !ecause o)the )act that the theses they discuss either corresond to reality only in art. or else not atall$ 6e *eet deli!erate. oen and un!ro"en (ational <auchist discourse only on the erihery o) those regi*es and olitical arties that. in the*sel'es. ro)ess and realise thisideological *odel. re)using. ho,e'er. to ad*it this$ For that reason. (ational <auchis*dodges direct. rational study. re)erring to sa)eguard hal) o) the heno*enon ,hate'er istied to the ?national@ is in the shade$ (ational %o**unists the*sel'es rec"on the*sel'es as !eing ?si*ly %o**unists@and ?Orthodox #arxists@. strictly )ollo,ing the teachings o) the %o**unist classics$ norder to understand ,hat the discussion is really a!out. it su))ices to roose the )ollo,ingcriterion socialist +roletarian- re'olutions ,ere 'ictorious only in those countries that#arx thought ,ere entirely unreared )or the* !y 'irtue o) the )ollo,ing M Their agrarian character M /nderde'elo*ent +or lac"- o) caitalist relations M A aucity o) ur!an roletarians M 6ea" industrialisation M The reser'ation o) the )unda*ental social conditions o) traditional societies +in'irtue o) their !elonging to reB*odernity-$

And this is the )unda*ental aradox o) #arxis* ,here socialis* ,as suosed to !e 'ictorious. and ,here all conditions ca*e together to this end. it ,as not 'ictoriousalthough urely theoretically it ,as there that Orthodox #arxist arties and trends existed.and are in art still reser'ed$ ut in those laces ,here. according to #arx. the socialistre'olution could in no ,ay ,in. they ,on triu*hantly$ The 'ictorious %o**unists. in the)irst lace the Russian olshe'i"s. care)ully tried to co'er u and retouch this o!'ious lac"o) corresondence to the rognosis o) their teacher. ne'er su!ecting it to care)ul analysis. re)erring to ar!itrarily !uild a reality under their seculati'e constructions I dri'ingsociety. olitics and econo*ics under a!stract criteria. artistically and *echanically$ Andonly )oreign o!ser'ers +sy*athisers or critics- noticed this (ational %o**unisticcharacter o) success)ul #arxist re'olutions. recognising nationalistic ele*ents as a dri'ing



)actor and 'irtue. ro'iding these re'olutions ,ith success and sta!ility 'ia archaic nationalstories o) the *o!ilisation o) #arxis* as a nationally interreted eschatological *yth$Sorel ,as one o) the )irst to notice this /strialo' noticed a little later$ +Sa'its"iy. the<er*ans (ie"isch. Petel. Lau))en!urg. 6ol)hei* and others I )ro* the side o) thesy*athisers Poer. 5aye". %ohn. Aron I )ro* the side o) the critics$-

(ational %o**unis* ruled in the /SSR. %o**unist %hina. (orth Korea.Gietna*. Al!ania. %a*!odia. and also in *any %o**unist *o'e*ents o) the Third 6orld.)ro* the #exican %hiaas and Peru'ian Sendero Lu*inoso +The <olden Path- to theKurdish 6or"ers@ Party and sla*ic socialis*$ Le)tist I socialist I ele*ents ,ere )oundin the Fascis* o) #ussolini and in the (ational Socialis* o) 5itler. !ut in these cases.these ele*ents ,ere )rag*entary. not syste*atised and suer)icial. exhi!ited *ore in*arginal or soradic heno*ena Le)t talian Fascis* only occurred in its earlyFuturistJ211 hase and in the talian Social Reu!licJ212 and the Le)tist antiB5itler (ational Socialis* o) the Strasser !rothers. or the antiB5itler underground o) the (ationalolshe'i"s SchultHBoysen and so )orth. neither o) ,hich ,as er*itted any lace ,ithinthe regi*e o) the Third Reich$ Although. it ,ould see*. according to the )or*al signs andtitle. ,e should relate (ational Socialis* to this category. there ,as no ure socialis* assuch there I rather statis*. *ultilied !y the in'ocation o) the archaic energies o) theethnos and ?race@$ ut in So'iet olshe'is*. 'ery recisely indicated !y the 'menavekh[2=)] author (i"olai /strialo' as (ational olshe'is*. 'ery e'idently !oth !eginningsare resent the social and the national. although this ti*e around. the ?national@ did notrecei'e a concetual )or*ulation$ / to the resent day. *any olitical *o'e*ents. )or instance in Latin A*erica. areinsired !y this co*lex o) ideas. ,hile the olitical regi*es o) %u!a. GeneHuela or oli'ia+E'o #orales is the )irst South A*erican leader o) nati'e ndian heritage-. or Ollanta5u*ala.J21: the suorters o) ,ho* are close to seiHing o,er in Peru. and other (ational %o**unist *o'e*ents are )ullB!lo,n olitical realities$ Either a go'ern*entalsyste* is already )ounded on the*. or else this could haen in the near )uture$ Ande'ery,here ,here %o**unis* has a realistic chance. there ,e )ace Le)tist ideas that ha'e !een *ultilied !y national +ethnic. archaic- energies and are i*le*ented along the lineso) traditional society$ asically. this is neoBOrthodox #arxis*. sui generis[2=<] (ational#arxis* +ho,e'er it ,ould characterise itsel)-$ ut ,here there are all the classical rere9uisites. according to #arx. )or its realisation +industrial society. the de'elo*ent o)hea'y industry. an ur!an roletarian. and so on-. socialist re'olutions did not occur +,iththe excetion o) the ehe*eral a'arian Reu!lic-.J21= are not occurring. and *ost li"ely,ill ne'er occur$ The *eaning o) Le)tist nationalis* +(ational <auchis*- consists in the*o!ilisation o) archaic )oundations I local. as a rule I in order to !rea" a,ay to thesur)ace and exhi!it itsel) in socioolitical creati'ity$ 5ere. socialist theory co*es into lay.ser'ing as a sort o) ?inter)ace@ )or those energies. ,ithout ,hich it ,ould !e )orced tore*ain a strictly local heno*ena. !ut than"s to #arxis* I ho,e'er understood andinterreted I these national energies recei'e the ossi!ility o) co**unicating ,ith otherenergies. analogical !y nature !ut di))erent structurally. and can e'en clai* uni'ersality and lanetary !readth trans)or*ing. than"s to a socialist rationality ,ar*ed u !y nationalis*.into a *essianic roect$

The grandiose exerience o) the /SSR sho,s ho, largeBscale the (ational%o**unist initiati'e can !e. ha'ing roduced )or al*ost a century a )unda*ental headache



)or all the ,orld@s caitalist syste*s$ %hina. *ean,hile. e'en today in a ne, context.accentuating *ore and *ore the national co*onent o) its socioolitical *odel. ro'es thatthis )oundation. in good ti*e and delicately ,or"ed. can re*ain co*etiti'e. e'en a)ter theglo!al triu*h o) li!eralBcaitalis*$ The exerience o) GeneHuela and oli'ia. )or its art.illustrates that (ational %o**unist regi*es arise e'en in our ti*e. and de*onstrate their

caacity )or li)e in the )ace o) great ressure$ (orth Korea. Gietna* and %u!a. as !e)ore.*aintain their olitical syste*s )ro* So'iet ti*es. not adoting such *ar"et re)or*s as%hina adoted. and not gi'ing u their ositions. as the /SSR did$ Fro* a theoretical oint o) 'ie,. in the heno*enon o) (ational <auchis* ,e are)aced ,ith #arxis*. interreted in the sirit o) archaic eschatological exectations anddee national *ythologies. connected to the exectation o) ?the end o) ti*es@ and the returno) ?the golden age@ +cargo cults. *illenarianis*-$ The thesis o) ustice and ?go'ern*entrights@ on ,hich the socialist utoia is !uilt is recognised as religious. ,hich a,a"ens the)unda*ental tectonic energies o) the ethnos$ Does (ational <auchis* today ha'e a roect )or the )uture7 n its co*leted )or*.no$ t is ha*ered !y a series o) )actors

M The ersisting shoc" o) the dissolution o) So'iet (ational %o**unis* +RussianEurasianists e'en in the 1C20s redicted this do,n)all i) the So'iet leadershi did notrecognise the i*ortance o) *inding the national and religious *yths directly. )ace to )ace- M The lac" o) a concetualisation and rationalisation o) the national co*onent inthe general ideological co*lex o) (ational %o**unist *o'e*ents and ideologies +thea!solute *aority o) suorters o) this ideological orientation truly rec"on the*sel'es to !e?si*ly #arxists@ or ?socialists@- M The ,ea" institutional co**unication o) (ational olshe'i" circles !et,eenthe*sel'es on a glo!al scale +there are no serious. largeBscale con)erences on this the*e. notheoretical ournals are u!lished. or. i) they are. they re*ain *arginaliHed. and there are no hilosohical de'elo*ents-$ (e'ertheless. in *y oinion. (ational <auchis* could certainly ha'e a glo!al)uture. inso)ar as a*ong *any seg*ents o) hu*anity archaic. ethnic and religious energiesare )ar )ro* !eing sent. ,hate'er can !e said o) the citiHens o) the *odern. enlightenedand rational 6est$

The Ne" eft Anti->lobalismB Postmo!ern PathsB abyrinths of Free!omB to

the A!2ent of Post-humanity

#ore than anything today. that ,hich is called the ?(e, Le)t@ +neoB<auchis*- or?ost*odernis*@ )its the ,ord co*!ination ?Le)tist roect@$ A*idst the ,hole sectru* o)Le)tist ideas at the start o) the T,entyB)irst century. recisely this orientation is not only the*ost !right and !laHing. !ut also the *ost thought out. intellectually adusted andsyste*atised$ (e, Le)tists aeared in the 1C;0s and 1C=0s in Euroe on the erihery o) theLe)tist )lan" o) #arxists. Trots"yites and anarchists$ #arx ,as the sine ua non[2=*] )orthe*. !ut they also acti'ely used other theoretical and hilosohical sources. in contrast tothe ?Old Le)tists@. !ringing i*orted ele*ents into their o,n theory ,ithout distur!ance$



For that reason. #arxis* in this )or* acti'ely !roadened. ,hile constantly uxtaosing,ith other hilosohical concetions. de'eloed itsel). rethought itsel). su!ected itsel) tocriticis* I in short. !eca*e an o!ect o) concentrated re)lection$ Such an unrestrictedrelation o) the (e, Le)t to #arxis* roduced t,o results on one hand. it !eca*e dilutedon the other. it *odernised essentially$

The ?hilosohers o) susicion@. dra,ing not only on #arx !ut also on Freud and (ietHsche. exerted a great in)luence uon the hilosohy o) the (e, Le)tists$ ThroughSartre. one o) the classic theorists o) the (e, Le)tists. the dee in)luence o) #artin5eidegger and the existential ro!le* enetrated into the Le)tist *o'e*ent$ Structuralis*had a colossal signi)icance. )ro* the *ost i*ortant theoreticians o) structuralis*.Ferdinand de Saussure to Le'iBStrauss$ n a hilosohical sense. (e, Le)tists ,erethe*sel'es structuralists. ,hile in the second hal) o) the 1C0s. de'eloing this hilosohical i*ulse )urther. they *o'ed on to ?ostBstructuralis*@. ha'ing exosed tosyste*atic critical re)lection their o,n 'ie,s o) the 1C=0s and 1C>0s$

The (e, Le)tists aroached #arxis* )ro* a structuralist osition I that is. theythought that #arx@s *ost i*ortant idea o) #arx@s concerned the )unda*ental in)luence o)understructures +in the usual case. !ourgeois society. care)ully hidden )ro* ideologicalconsciousness- in relation to a suerstructure$ The #arxist analysis o) ideology as ?)alseconsciousness@ !eca*e. )or the (e, Le)tists. the "ey to the interretation o) society. hilosohy. *an and the econo*y$ ut that sa*e train o) thought they disco'ered )ro* (ietHsche. ,ho had raised the ,hole sectru* o) hilosohical ideas to the ri*ordial ?,illto o,er@ +this ,as its 'ery !asis. according to (ietHsche-. and )ro* Freud. )or ,ho* the !ase ,as the su!conscious and unconscious i*ulses. rooted in the *ineral )oundations o)*an@s sexuality and the ha!itual structures that )or* in early childhood$ To this ,as addedthe 5eideggerian *odel. ,here the !ase is the )act o) ure existence. (asein$ All the'arious deciherings o) the ?!ase@ ,ere aggregated !y the (e, Le)tists into a generalsche*e. ,here the role o) ?the !ase@ as such I regardless o) a concrete hilosohicaltendency I ,as carried o'er into the notion o) structure$ Structure I that is. si*ultaneousindustrial )orces reroduced in industrial relations. the su!conscious. ?the ,ill to o,[email protected] (asein$ The !asic idea o) the (e, Le)tists is that !ourgeois society is a result o) *anyB)aceted 'iolence and oression !y the ?suerstructures@ +o) the !ourgeoisie oliticalsyste*. ordinary consciousness. the rule o) elites. generally acceted hilosohical syste*s.science. society. the *ar"et econo*y. and so on-. ?!ases@ and ?structures@ +also understood'ery !roadly. including ?unconscious@. ?roletariat@. ?cororeity@. ?*ass@. the exerience o)authentic existence. )reedo* and ustice-$ y such *eans. the (e, Le)tists. in contrast tothe Old Le)tists. *ount a syste*atic. critical attac" on caitalist society si*ultaneously)ro* all directions. )ro* the olitical +the e'ents o) #ay 1C= in Euroean caitals- to thecultural. hilosohical. artistic. the 'ery resentation o) *an. reason. science. and reality$ nthe course o) this *assi'e intellectual ,or" +to ,hich. incidentally. neither the Old Le)tistsnor the (ational <auchists aid the slightest attention-. the (e, Le)tists ca*e to theconclusion that caitalis* is not only socioolitical e'il. !ut the )unda*ental exression o)a glo!al lie concerning *an. reality. reason. and society. and conse9uently. in caitalistsociety. as in the resulting *o*ents. is concentrated the ,hole history o) alienation$ The (e, Le)tists reBani*ated Rousseau@s idea o) the ?(o!le Sa'age@ and roosed an extensi'e anora*a o) an ideal society ,ithout exloitation. alienation. lies. suression. orexclusion. !y analogy ,ith the archaic grous ,hich are *oti'ated !y the ?econo*y o) the



gi)t@ +#$ #auss-$J21

The analysis o) the (e, Le)tists sho,ed that *odernity not only did not realise in ractice its ?li!eration@ slogans. !ut *ade the dictatorshi o) alienation e'en *ore rigid andreulsi'e. although hidden !ehind de*ocratic and li!eral )acades$ n this *anner ,as the

theory o) ost*odernis* asse*!led. )ounded on the )act that. at the 'ery )oundation o) the icture o) the ,orld. science. hilosohy and olitical ideologies. ,hich had !eenasse*!led at the da,n o) the eoch o) *odernity or in the course o) its de'elo*ent. arestrained interretations. in)elicities. delusions and ?racist@ resuositions. ,hich e'entheoretically !loc" the ossi!ility o) li!erating ?the structure@ +?the !ase@- )ro*?suerstructures@$ This led to the reconsideration o) the hilosohical tradition o) *odernity,ith the un*as"ing o) those *echanis*s that concentrate the nodes o) alienation inthe*sel'es$ This ractice recei'ed the na*e ?deconstruction@. ,hich rooses a care)ul andthorough structural analysis o) the context )ro* ,hich one or another idea roceeded. ,itha detailed exBarticulation o) the su!stantial nuclei )ro* out o) the layer o) athos. *oralis*.rhetorical )igures and conscious uggling$ Foucault. in ;istory o% 9adness[2=#] and The Dirth o% the Clinic"[22>] sho,ed that the conte*orary relation to sychological disorders.and. *ore !roadly. to disease as such. carries all the signs o) intellectual racis*. aartheid.and other totalitarian reudices. that !eco*e e'ident in the e9uation o) the sic" ,ith thecri*inal and in the structural identity o) enitential and theraeutic esta!lish*ents. ha'ing !een one and the sa*e in the early stages o) *odernity$

ourgeois society. desite its *i*icry and de*ocratic )acade. ro'es to !e atotalitarian and discilinarian society$ 6hat is *ore. at the centre o) this li!eral dictatorshi.the (e, Le)tists recognise the dee and al*ost ne'er dou!ted nor*ati'e notions o) reason.science. reality. society and so on. and not only one or the other olitical and econo*ic*echanis*s. ,hich are the*sel'es conse9uences o) the dee *echanis*s o) alienation$ n this consists the *ain di))erence !et,een the (e, Le)tists and the Old Le)tiststhe (e, Le)tists dou!t the structure o) reason. they contest the !asis o) our concetion o)reality. disro!e ositi'e science as a *ysti)ication and dictatorshi o) the acade*ic circles+Feyera!end. Kuhn-J221. and sharly criticise the concet o) *an as a totalitariana!straction$ They do not !elie'e that it is ossi!le to change so*ething !y the ath o)e'olution in the Le)tist *anner o) the existing syste*. !ut also contest the e))ecti'eness o)radical #arxis*. noting that it did not o'erco*e ,hat it ,as suosed to and that ,here itdid. it ,as not Orthodox #arxis* +they !orro, )ro* Trots"y the criticis* o) Stalinis* andthe So'iet exerience-$ And so the (e, Le)tists )or*ulate a 'ast roect o) ?the correct@ )uture. in ,hich thecentral lace is occuied !y M The reection o) reason +the call to the conscious adotion o) schiHohrenia !yDeleuHe and <uattari- M The renunciation o) *an as the *easure o) all things +?the death o) *an@ o) Le'i.?the death o) the author@ o) arthes- M The o'erco*ing o) all sexual ta!oos +)reedo* to choose one@s orientation.renunciation o) the rohi!ition on incest. a re)usal to recognise er'ersion as er'ersion.and so on- M The legalisation o) all "inds o) narcotics. including the hard ones M A *o'e to ne, )or*s o) sontaneous and soradic !eing +the ?rhiHo*e@ o)DeleuHe-



M The destruction o) structural society and go'ern*ent in the ser'ice o) ne,. )reeand anarchical co**unes$

The !oo" -mpire !y (egri and 5ardt. in ,hich are gi'en the theses o) the (e,

Le)tists. can !e read as a olitical *ani)esto o) these tendencies. si*li)ied to the oint o) ri*iti'eness$ (egri and 5ardt call the glo!al caitalistic syste* ?E*ire@ and identi)y it,ith glo!alis* and A*erican ,orld go'ern*ent$ n their oinion. glo!alis* creates theconditions )or a uni'ersal. lanetary re'olution o) the *asses. ,ho. using the co**oncharacter o) glo!alis* and its ossi!ilities )or co**unication and the ,ide. oen sread o)"no,ledge. create a net,or" o) ,orld sa!otage. )or the shi)t )ro* hu*anity +standing outas the su!ect and o!ect o) oression. hierarchical relations. exloitation anddiscilinarian strategies- to ostBhu*anity +*utants. cy!orgs. clones. and 'irtuality-. andthe )ree selection o) gender. aearance and indi'idual rationality according to one@sar!itrary rule and )or any sace o) ti*e$ (egri and 5ardt thin" that this ,ill lead to the)reeing u o) the creati'e otential o) the *asses and at the sa*e ti*e to the destruction o)the glo!al o,er o) ?E*ire@$ This the*e is endlessly reeated in the cine*atograhy insuch )il*s as The 9atri:. The Doys’ Clu!. and so on$ The antiBglo!alisation *o'e*ent in ,hole is oriented recisely to such a roect o)the )uture$ And such actions as ?the %on)erence in S]o [email protected] ,here antiBglo!alists)irst tried to ai* at a co**on strategy. attest that the (e, Le)tist roect is disco'ering)or*s o) concrete olitical realisation$ #any concrete actions I gay arades. antiBglo!alisation rotests. Occuy 6all Street. the distur!ances in i**igrant su!ur!s o)Euroean cities. the re!ellions o) ?autono*ous ones@ in de)ence o) s9uatters@ rights. !roadsocial rotests o) ne, la!our unions +all re*inding one o) a carni'al-. the *o'e*ent )or thelegalisation o) drugs. ecological actions and rotests and so on I are included in thisorientation$ #oreo'er. ost*odernis* as an artistic style. ha'ing !eco*e the *ainstrea* o)conte*orary 6estern art. exresses this 'ery (e, Le)t olitical hilosohy. entering our,ay o) li)e through ictures. design or the )il*s o) Tarantino and RodrigueH. ,ithout reli*inary oliticalBhilosohical analysis. outrunning our conscious selection. hoo"ingitsel) into our *inds ,ithout our "no,ledge or ,ill$ This is attended !y !oth a general !roadening o) 'irtual co**unication technologies. ,hich in their o,n syste* carry ani*licit in'itation to ost*odernity. and the disersion into ostBhu*an. hedonistic)rag*ents$ S#S and ##S *essages. nternet !logs and 'ideo !logs. )lash *o!s and otherha!itual engage*ents o) conte*orary youth. in essence reresent the realisation o)searate sides o) the (e, Le)t roect. ,hile. it is true. !eing controlled !y the !ourgeoisiesyste*. ,illingly ro)iting )ro* a )ashion that this ti*e is not its o,n. !ut that o) its hiddenene*y$

5ere ,e should say a )e, ,ords a!out the relations o) the ne, Le)tists and antiBglo!alists to conte*orary li!erals and glo!alists$ As #arx thought in his ti*e thatcaitalis*. desite its horrors. ,as *ore rogressi'e than )eudalis* and the #iddle Ages+since it !rings closer the onset o) socialis*-. so conte*orary ost*odernists and ne,Le)tists. ,hile harshly criticising ?E*ire@. stand in solidarity ,ith it to so*e degree. as it.in their oinion. ,hile aggra'ating alienation and strengthening its lanetary dictatorshi.latently reares the ,orld re'olution o) the *asses$



eftists in Contem.orary &ussia

n conclusion ,e ,ill say a )e, ,ords a!out the state o) a))airs o) Le)tist )orces in

conte*orary Russia$ n ractice. ,e see that ,e ha'e no ?Old Le)tists@ in the )ull sense o)the ,ord. ust as ,e had none in So'iet ti*es$ A grou o) So'iet #arxistBdissidents+ino'ie'. Schedo'its. #ed'ede'- are o) no account. inas*uch as they ,ere una!le to startany sort o) ideological school$ (ational %o**unists. on the other hand. a))ord !y the*sel'es a !road )or*ation I social. sychological and olitical I the leaders o) ,hich. in our ti*e. are the %o**unistParty o) the Russian Federation$ nas*uch as all So'iet history. *ar"ed !y the 'ictory o)socialis* +the true sign o) a ,or" that has an archaic )oundation-. is the history o)unconscious (ational <auchis*. such a steady tendency is not surrising$ n the )irst stages o) yugano'@s creation o) the %o**unist Party o) the RussianFederationJ228 +not ,ithout so*e articiation on *y art. as ,ell as Pro"hano'.J22:,hich ,as exressed in the oinion o) the ne,saer Eavtra JTo*orro, at the start o) the1CC0s-. e))orts ,ere *ade to interret and concetually araise the resence o) thenational co*onent in the So'iet ,orld'ie, +(ational olshe'is*-. !ut this initiati'e ,asa!andoned !y the leadershi o) the %PRF. ,hich had occuied itsel) ,ith so*e other*atters I ,hich ,ere aarently *ore i*ortant )or it$ 5o,e'er. on the le'el o) rhetoricand )irst reactions. Russian %o**unists in all senses resent the*sel'es as con)ir*ednational conser'ati'es I so*eti*es e'en as ?Orthodox #onarchists$@ ndeed. a'erage Russians I esecially the *iddle aged and older generations Iare in large art unconscious (ational <auchists$ They suort this co*lex o) ideas,hene'er the oortunity is a))orded the* +the arty Rodina-.J22; and construe in this'ein *uch that has no relation ,hatsoe'er to that co*lex +the social conser'atis* o)/nited Russia. and e'en Putin hi*sel)-$ Those sa*e *arginalised grous. ,ho. i*itatingEuroean neoB(aHis*. atte*t to !ring out an a*alga* ?national socialis*@ !y na*e. ,erene'er (ational <auchists inso)ar as they i*itate +as a rule. )ro* a de)iciency o) intellect-the gadgets o) 5itler@s regi*e. as it ,ere continuing to lay at soldiering in the sand!ox or,hile ,atching the rogra**e 'eventeen 9oments o% 'pring"[22?] delighting in the !lac"as the cro,@s ,ing uni)or* o) rone'oy as #Wller$J22> The roect o) the (ationalolshe'i" Party. ,hich . in *y ti*e. ,as rearing to trans)or* into an authentic.Russian. conscious (ational <auchis* on the )oundations o) the theories o) /strialo'. (ie"isch and the Le)tist Eurasianists. alas. degenerated at the end o) the 1CC0s intohooliganis* and senseless organisation. and later started to ser'e the antiBRussian.OrangeJ22 ultraBli!eral o,ers. )ed !y the 6est +,hich co*letely contradicts the)unda*ental re*ises o) (ational olshe'is*. ,hich reresents. !oth in theory and in ractice. the conscious Le)t I !eing thus a strictly antiBli!eral. Russian atriotic I andconse9uently antiB6estern I roect-$

The (e, Le)t and the ost*odernists in Russia[s olitical sectru* are racticallynot reresented the hilosohical discourse o) ost*odernis* is too co*licated )or the*$A tiny grou o) conscious +reresentati'e- antiBglo!alists exists. !ut it is "no,n *ore in the6est and constitutes nothing serious. neither in an organisational nor in a theoretical sense$n Russian art I in articular. in the <uel*an gallery at 6inHa'od.J22C and also inRussian )il* I ost*odern tendencies. on the contrary. are rather clearly e'ident. and their



artistic exressions are at ti*es i*ressi'e$ The !oo"s o) Soro"inJ280 or Pele'inJ281 resent ost*odernis* in a literary )or*$ #oreo'er. the a'erage artistic or e'en technological I ,hich is *ore i*ortant I roduct o) the 6est carries in itsel) a not insigni)icant charge o) latent ost*odernity.occuying there,ith the Russian cultural sace ,ith acti'ely )unctioning signs. ,hich are

ha**ered out in the creati'e la!oratories o) the (e, Le)t. and are then ut on the roduction line o) glo!al industry. ,hich deri'es a shortBter* !ene)it )ro* the* +andgradually sharens its o,n )oundations-$ Russia here er)or*s the role o) an inertconsu*er. not understanding the olitical and ideological *eaning o) that ,hich it is !uying auto*atically I )ollo,ing )ashions or glo!al trends. and )orgetting that e'ery trendhas. as the ost*odernists say. trendBsetters those ,ho esta!lish a deter*inate trend )or aseci)ic goal$



9 iberalism an! *ts etamor.hoses

*n 1C82. the <er*an (ational olshe'i". Ernst (ie"isch. ,hose ideas ,erere*ar"a!ly si*ilar to !oth the Russian (ational olshe'i"s +/strialo'- and theEurasianists. ,rote a !oo" ,ith a re'ealing title ;itler/ (isaster %or +ermany.[2)2] The !oo" ,ent al*ost unnoticed. !ut a)ter a )e, years led hi* straight to the concentrationca*s$ 5e turned out to !e a!solutely right I 5itler had. in )act. aeared to !e reciselysuch a )ate)ul )igure )or <er*any$ Fate)ul. *eaning not accidental ,ellB)ounded. engrainedin the course o) things. oined ,ith the logic o) Fate. !ut e*!odying her dar"er asect$ Andin this !oo". as in others o) his ,or"s. (ie"isch reeated. ?n hu*an society there are no)atalities such as those inherent in nature I the changing o) the seasons. natural disasters$The dignity o) *an consists in the )act that he can al,ays say ?no@$ 5e can al,ays re!el$ 5ecan al,ays rise and )ight against e'en that ,hich see*s ine'ita!le. a!solute andun!eata!le$ And e'en i) he loses. he gi'es an exa*le to others$ And others ta"e his lace$And others say ?no@$ That@s ,hy the *ost )ate)ul and )ated occurrences can !e de)eated,ith the strength o) the soul$@ (ie"isch )ought against (aHis* and the (aHis. and redicted earlier and *ore recisely than *ost others ,hat ,ould !e the conse9uences o) their !loody rule )or<er*any and *an"ind$ 5e did not gi'e u$ 5e thre, do,n a challenge to ?e'il )ate@. not utting do,n his )ists$ #ost i*ortantly he resisted a strength that see*ed in'inci!le ,itha hand)ul o) li"eB*inded antiB(aHis$ A grou o) (ie"isch@s )ollo,ers I one o) the* the (ational olshe'i" 5arro SchulHeBoysenJ288 I !eca*e the core o) the ?Red Orchestra@$J28: t ,as hi*. al*ost !lind !y then. that the So'iet troos )reed )ro* a concentrationca* in 1C:;$ 5e did not see the hysical 'ictories )or ,hich he ga'e his li)e. !ut until theend o) his days he re*ained con'inced that it is necessary to stand oosed to the e'il )ateo) hu*an history. e'en i) it arises )ro* its deeest )ly,heels$ Today the sa*e could !e said a!out li!eralis* as an ideology. ,hich ,as 'ictoriousin the 6est and ,hich sreads its in)luence I using *any old and ne, *ethods I acrossthe entire ,orld. suorted !y suero,er nu*!er one. the /nited States$ t see*s onceagain that this *ight is ine'ita!le. not accidental. and )ollo,s the sa*e )unda*ental )ate)ulla, ,hich see*s to suggest that to argue ,ith this o,er is useless$ ut again. as in thecase o) Ernst (ie"isch. eole are )ound ,ho are ready to carry out that sa*e rogra**e.only this ti*e not as regarding a searate country. !ut rather all *an"ind ?Li!eralis* is thee'il )ate o) hu*an ci'ilisation$@ The !attle ,ith it. oosition to it. and re)utation o) its oisonous dog*as I this is the *oral i*erati'e o) all honest eole on the lanet$ At allcosts. ,e *ust. argu*entati'ely and thoroughly. again and again. reeat that truth. e'en,hen to do so see*s useless. unti*ely. olitically incorrect. and so*eti*es e'endangerous$



iberalism as a #ummary of %estern Ci2ilisationB an! *ts (efinition

n order to ade9uately understand the essence o) li!eralis*. ,e *ust recognise thatit is not accidental. that its aearance in the history o) olitical and econo*ic ideologies is

!ased on )unda*ental rocesses. roceeding in all o) 6estern ci'ilisation$ Li!eralis* is notonly a art o) that history. !ut its urest and *ost re)ined exression. its result$ This rincial o!ser'ation de*ands )ro* us a stricter de)inition o) li!eralis*$ Li!eralis* is a olitical and econo*ic hilosohy and ideology. e*!odying in itsel) the *ost i*ortant )orceBlines o) the *odern age and o) the eoch o) *odernity M The understanding o) the indi'idual as the *easure o) all things M elie) in the sacred character o) ri'ate roerty M The assertion o) the e9uality o) oortunity as the *oral la, o) society M elie) in the ?contractual@ !asis o) all socioolitical institutions. includinggo'ern*ental M The a!olition o) any go'ern*ental. religious and social authorities ,ho lay clai*to ?the co**on truth@ M The searation o) o,ers and the *a"ing o) social syste*s o) control o'er anygo'ern*ent institution ,hatsoe'er M The creation o) a ci'il society ,ithout races. eoles and religions in lace o)traditional go'ern*ents M The do*inance o) *ar"et relations o'er other )or*s o) olitics +the thesis?econo*ics is )ate@- M %ertainty that the historical ath o) 6estern eoles and countries is a uni'ersal*odel o) de'elo*ent and rogress )or the entire ,orld. ,hich *ust. in an i*erati'eorder. !e ta"en as the standard and attern$

t is seci)ically these rinciles ,hich lie at the !ase o) historical li!eralis*.de'eloed !y the hilosohers Loc"e. #ill. Kant. and later entha* and %onstance. rightu to the neoBli!eral school o) the T,entieth century. such as Friedrich 5aye"J28; andKarl Poer$ Ada* S*ith.J28= the )ollo,er o) Loc"e.J28> on the !asis o) the ideas o) histeacher. analysed !usiness acti'ity and laid the )oundations )or olitical econo*y. ha'ing,ritten the olitical and econo*ic i!le o) the *odern eoch$

Free!om From

The rinciles o) the hilosohy o) li!eralis* and the 'ery na*e ?li!eralis*@ are !ased on the thesis o) ?)reedo* e9uals li!erty@$ At the sa*e ti*e. the li!eral hilosohers.in articular #ill. underscore that the )reedo* they stand )or is a strictly negati'e )reedo*$#oreo'er. they searate )reedo* )ro* and )reedo* to and suggest using )or these thingst,o di))erent English ,ords ?li!erty@ and ?)reedo*@$ Li!erty i*lies )reedo* )ro*so*ething$ t is )ro* here that the na*e li!eralis* is deri'ed$ Li!erals )ight )or this)reedo* and insist on it$ As )or ?)reedo* to@ Bthat is. the *eaning and goal o) )reedo* Ihere li!erals )all silent. rec"oning that each indi'idual can hi*sel) )ind a ,ay to aly his



)reedo*. or that he can neglect altogether to search )or a ,ay to use it$ This is a 9uestion o) ri'ate choice. ,hich is not discussed and ,hich has no olitical or ideological 'alue$

On the other hand. ?)reedo* )ro*@ is de)ined recisely and has a dog*aticcharacter$ Li!erals roose to !e )ree )ro* M <o'ern*ent and its control o'er the econo*y. olitics and ci'il society

M %hurches and their dog*as M %lass syste*s M Any )or* o) co**on areas o) resonsi!ility )or the econo*y M Any atte*t to redistri!ute. ,ith one or another go'ern*ent or social institutions.the results o) *aterial and nonB*aterial la!our +the )or*ula o) the li!eral hilosoher Phili (e*o. a )ollo,er o) 5aye" ?Social ustice is deely i**oral@- M Ethnic attach*ents M Any collecti'e identity ,hatsoe'er$

One can thin" that ,e ha'e so*e 'ersion o) anarchy here. !ut that is not exactlyright$ Anarchists I at least those li"e ProudhonJ28 I consider. as an alternati'e togo'ern*ent. )ree. co**unal la!our. ,ith a co*lete collecti'isation o) its roducts. andthey co*e out strongly against ri'ate o,nershi ,hile li!erals. on the other hand. see inthe *ar"et and in the sacredness o) ri'ate roerty a ledge )or the realisation o) theiroti*al socioBecono*ic *odel$ esides. theoretically considering that the go'ern*ent*ust sooner or later die out. oening u a lace )or the ,orld *ar"et and ,orld ci'ilsociety. li!erals. )or rag*atic reasons. suort the go'ern*ent i) it is !ourgeoisBde*ocratic. )acilitates the de'elo*ent o) the *ar"et. guarantees to ?ci'il society@ sa)etyand rotection against aggressi'e neigh!ours. and sta'es o)) ?the ,ar o) all against all@+5o!!es-$ n e'erything else. li!erals go rather )ar. reudiating ractically all sociooliticalinstitutions. right u to the )a*ily and sexual di))erentiation$ n extre*e cases. li!eralssuort not only the )reedo* o) a!ortions. !ut e'en the )reedo* )ro* sexual di))erentiation+suorting the rights o) ho*osexuals. transsexuals. and so on-$ The )a*ily. as another )or*o) society. is thought !y the* to !e a urely contractual thing. ,hich. as ,ith other?enterrises@. is conditioned !y legal agree*ents$ On the ,hole. li!erals insist not only on ?)reedo* )ro*@ tradition and sacrality +notto *ention re'ious )or*s o) traditional society-. !ut e'en on ?)reedo* )ro*@ socialisationand redistri!ution. on ,hich Le)tist I socialist and %o**unist I olitical ideologiesinsist +to sea" o) olitical )or*s that are conte*oraries o) li!eralis*. or e'en retendersto its throne-$

iberalism an! the Nation

Li!eralis* ,as engendered in 6estern Euroe and A*erica in the eoch o) !ourgeois re'olutions and strengthened as 6estern olitical. religious and social institutionsthat receded the i*erialB)eudal eriods gradually ,ea"ened *onarchy. the church.estates$ n its )irst stages. li!eralis* dealt ,ith the idea o) the creation o) conte*orarynations. ,hen in Euroe they concei'ed the ?nation@ as a uni)or* olitical )or*ation



)ounded on a contractual !asis. oosing the *ore ancient i*erial and )eudal )or*s$ ?Thenation@ ,as understood as the totality o) citiHens o) a state a totality in ,hich is e*!odiedthe relationshi o) a oulation o) indi'iduals connected !y a co**on territorial residenceand a co**on le'el o) econo*ic de'elo*ent$ (either ethnic. nor religious. nor class)actors had any signi)icance$ Such a ?nationBstate@ +5tat,nation- had no co**on historical

goal and no deter*inate *ission$ t concei'ed o) itsel) as a cororation or !usiness that is)ounded through the recirocal agree*ent o) its articiants and that can theoretically !edissol'ed on those sa*e !ases$ The Euroean nations "ic"ed religion. ethnic identity and classes to the cur!. !elie'ing these to !e re*nants o) the ?dar" ages@$ This is the di))erence !et,een li!eralnationalis* and other 'ersions thereo) here. no 'alues o) ethnoBreligious or historicalco**unities are ta"en into consideration the accent is ut only on the !ene)its andad'antages o) the collecti'e agree*ent o) the indi'iduals concerned. ,ho ha'e esta!lisheda go'ern*ent )or concrete. rag*atic reasons$

The Challen)e of ar'ism

). ,ith the dis*antling o) )eudalB*onarchic and clerical regi*es. e'erything ,asgoing s*oothly )or li!eralis*. and no ideological alternati'es ste**ing )ro* the Euroean#iddle Ages ,ere a!le to oose li!erals. then in the deths o) the hilosohy o) the*odern era there aeared a *o'e*ent contesting ,ith li!erals )or the right to )irst lace inthe rocess o) *odernisation. and co*ing out ,ith a o,er)ul concetual criti9ue o)li!eralis* deri'ed not )ro* ositions o) the ast +)ro* the Right-. !ut )ro* ositions o) the)uture +the Le)t-$ Such ,ere socialist and %o**unist ideas. recei'ing their *ost syste*aticexression in #arxis*$ #arx care)ully analysed the olitical econo*y o) Ada* S*ith. and. *ore !roadly.o) the li!eral school. !ut he dre, )ro* these ideas an a!solutely original conclusion$ 5erecognised their artial correctness I in co*arison to )eudal *odels o) traditionalsocieties I !ut he o))ered to go )urther. and in the na*e o) the )uture o) *an"ind. to re)ute,hat are )or li!erals the *ost i*ortant ostulates$

n li!eralis*. #arxis* M Denied the identi)ication o) the su!ect ,ith the indi'idual +thin"ing instead thatthe su!ect has a collecti'eBclass nature- M Recognised the unust syste* o) the aroriation o) surlus 'alue !y caitalistsin the rocess o) a *ar"et econo*y M Rec"oned the ?)reedo*@ o) !ourgeois society a 'eiled )or* o) class sure*acy.*as"ing under ne, clothes the *echanis*s o) exloitation. alienation and oression M %alled )or a roletarian re'olution and a!olition o) the *ar"et and ri'ate roerty M Pinned its hoes on ai*ing )or the social collecti'isation o) roerty+exroriation o) the exroriator- M %lai*ed creati'e la!our as the social )reedo* o) the %o**unist )uture +as therealisation o) *an@s ?)reedo* to@- M %riticised !ourgeois nationalis* as a )or* o) collecti'e 'iolence o'er the oorestlayers o) its resecti'e societies. and as an instru*ent o) international aggression in the



na*e o) the egoistic interests o) the national !ourgeoisie$

Thus. o'er t,o centuries. #arxis* trans)or*ed into the *ost i*ortant ideologicaloonent and co*etitor o) li!eralis*. attac"ing its syste*. and ideologically )ollo,ing

and so*eti*es scoring i*ortant successes. esecially in the T,entieth century. ,ith theaearance o) a ,orld socialist syste*$ At a certain oint. it see*ed as though reciselythose Le)tist o,ers ,ould ,in the argu*ent o'er the heritage o) *odernity and )or the?orthodoxy@ o) the ne, age. and *any li!erals !egan to !elie'e that socialis* ,as theuna'oida!le )uture. ,hich ,ould correct the li!eral olitical syste*. and erhas a!olish italtogether$ Fro* here. the tendencies o) ?socialBli!eralis*@ !egin. ,hich. recognisingcertain ?*oral@ theses o) #arxis*. stro'e to s*ooth o'er its re'olutionary otential and toco*!ine t,o )oundational ideologies o) the ne, era at the rice o) reecting their cruelestand *ost ointed a))ir*ations$ Re'isionists on the side o) #arxis*. in articular RightB,ing Social De*ocrats. *o'ed in the sa*e direction )ro* the oosite ca*$ The 9uestion a!out ho, to relate to socialists and Le)tists reached its *ost di))icult*o*ents )or li!erals in the 1C20s and 1C80s. ,hen the %o**unists )irst ro'ed thei*ortance o) their historical intentions and the ossi!ility o) their seiHing and holding o,er$ n this eriod. the neoBli!eral school arose +'on #ises. 5aye". and a little later.Poer and Aron-. )or*ulating a 'ery i*ortant ideological thesis li!eralis* is not atransitional stage )ro* )eudalis* to #arxis* and socialis*. !ut rather an ideology that isco*lete in itsel). holding an exclusi'e *onooly on the heritage o) the Enlighten*ent andthe *odern era$ n this 'ie,. #arxis* itsel) is no de'elo*ent o) 6estern thought. !utrather a regressi'e return. using *odernist slogans. to the )eudal eoch o) eschatologicalurisings and *illenarian cults$ (eoBli!erals ro'ed this !y the syste*atic criti9ue o) the<er*an conser'ati'e hilosoher. 5egel. as ,ell as !y re)erences to the totalitarian So'ietexerience. and called )or a return to the roots. to Loc"e and S*ith. standing )ir*ly on their rinciles and !y criticising socialBli!erals )or their concessions and co*ro*ises$

(eoBli!eralis* as a theory ,as *ost clearly )or*ulated in Euroe +Austria.<er*any. and <reat ritain-. !ut its largeBscale realisation haened in the /nited States.,here li!eralis* do*inated in olitics. ideology and econo*ic ractice$ And although atthe ti*e o) Roose'elt there ,ere strong socialBli!eral tendencies e'en in the /SA +the (e,Deal era. the in)luence o) Keynes. and so on-. the indisuta!le ad'antage ,as ,ith theli!eral school$ n a theoretical sense. this tendency recei'ed its greatest de'elo*ent in the%hicago school +#$ Fried*an. F$ Knight. <$ Si*ons. 3$ Stigler. and others-$J28C

A)ter the Second 6orld 6ar. the decisi'e stage o) the !attle )or the heritage o) theEnlighten*ent !egan li!erals suorted !y the /SA )ought the )inal !attle ,ith #arxis*. ersoni)ied !y the /SSR and its allies$ Euroe occuied the third lace in the ideological,ar socialBli!eral and Social De*ocratic tendencies re'ailed there$

The (efiniti2e @ictory of the iberals in the 1990s

The )all o) the /SSR and our de)eat in the %old 6ar signi)ied. )ro* an ideological oint o) 'ie,. the )inal distri!ution o) roles in the )ight )or the heritage o) theEnlighten*ent and )or the ,ay o) the )uture$ Exactly on the strength o) the )act that the



/SSR lost and )ell aart. it !eca*e o!'ious that historical right ,as on the side o) theli!erals. esecially o) the neoBli!erals. ,ho re'ented socialis* and %o**unis* )ro*clai*ing the )uture as ?the rogressi'e to*orro,@$ So'iet society and other socialistregi*es turned out to !e care)ully disguised 'ersions o) archaic structures. ha'inginterreted in their o,n ,ay the ?*ystically@. ?religiously@ understood #arxis*$

This allBi*ortant *o*ent in the olitical history o) *an"ind )irst o) all ut the doton the i ,ith resect to the *ost i*ortant 9uestion o) the ti*es ,hich o) the t,o centralideologies o) the T,entieth century ,ould )ollo, the ast +the sirit o) the Enlighten*ent-and auto*atically recei'e the )uture +the right to do*inate. !y ideological *eans. theco*ing days-$ The 9uestion o) the goal o) the historical rocess ,as rincially settled$ n the *iddle o) the T,entieth century. the French hilosoher. a 5egelian o)Russian origin. Alexandre KoQ'e. suggested that the 5egelian ?end o) history@ ,ould *ar"a %o**unist ,orld re'olution$ The traditionalists +RenN <uNnon. 3ulius E'ola-. ,horeected the Enlighten*ent. de)ending Tradition and )oretelling ?the end o) the ,orld@through the 'ictory o) ?the )ourth caste@ +the 'hudras"[24>] or roletarians- thoughtsi*ilarly$ ut in 1CC1. ,ith the dissolution o) the /SSR. it !eca*e clear that ?the end o)history@ ,ould carry not a #arxist. !ut a li!eral )or*. a!out ,hich the A*erican hilosoher Francis Fu"uya*a hurried to in)or* hu*anity. roclai*ing ?the end o) history@as the lanetary 'ictory o) the *ar"et. li!eralis*. the /SA and !ourgeoisBde*ocracy$#arxis* as a ossi!le alternati'e and roect o) the )uture !eca*e a *eaningless eisodeo) olitical and ideological history$ Fro* that *o*ent. there not only !egan the ta"eBo)) o) li!eralis* in its *ostorthodox. )unda*entalist AngloBSaxon and antiBsocialist )or*s. !ut also the laying !are o)the )unda*ental )act o) the ideological history o) *an li!eralis* is destiny$ ut this *eansthat its theses I its hilosohical. olitical. social and econo*ic rinciles and dog*as Ishould !e loo"ed at as so*ething uni'ersal and a!solute. ha'ing no alternati'es$

?n the Threshol! of the American Century

As a result o) the olitical history o) the T,entieth century. it ,as disco'ered thatli!eralis* had ,on the ,ar )or conte*orary ti*es. ha'ing !eaten all its oonents on !oththe Right and the Le)t$ The huge cycle o) the *odern era ,as co*leted ,ith the triu*ho) li!eral ideology. ,hich recei'ed hence)orth a *onooly on the control and direction o)historical de'elo*ent$ Li!eralis* ,as le)t ,ith no sy**etrical ene*y. no largeBscalesu!ect ,ith an ade9uate historical sel)Bunderstanding. a con'incing and orderly ideology.serious *aterial and *ilitary resources. and co*ara!le technological. econo*ic and ar*ed)orces$ All that still oosed li!eral ideology sho,ed itsel) as a chaotic collection o) si*lenuisances and *ista"es in a ,ord. ?noises@. oosing through inertia the !uilders o) ?thene, li!eral order@$ This ,as not a ri'alry o) alternati'e ci'ilisational and geooliticalsu!ects. !ut the reacti'e and assi'e resistance o) a disorganised )ield$ Thus. soil. rain."arstic e*tiness or *arshland !others the !uilders o) roads the discussion is not a!out theconstruction o) another route that another co*any insists on. !ut a!out the resistance o)the en'iron*ent$ n this situation the /SA. as the citadel o) ,orld li!eralis*. too" on a ne, 9uality$Fro* this ti*e on. it !eca*e not only one o) t,o suero,ers. !ut the single lanetary



hero. suddenly ulling a,ay )ro* its ri'als$ The French critic o) the /nited States. 5u!ertGNdrine.J2:1 suggested that it should hence)orth not !e called a suero,er !ut ahyero,er. underscoring its solitariness and its asy**etrical sueriority$ Fro* anideological oint o) 'ie,. the 'ictory o) li!eralis* and the rise o) the /SA is not anaccidental coincidence. !ut t,o sides o) one and the sa*e occurrence$ The /SA ,on ?the

%old 6ar@ not !ecause it a*assed *ore otential and got ahead in the technologicalco*etition. !ut !ecause it !ased itsel) on the li!eral ideology. ro'ing !oth itstechnological co*etence and its historical rightness in the ideological ,ar. su!stantiatingthe !alance o) the *odern era$ And ust as li!eralis* dislayed its )ated di*ension. the/SA recei'ed a concrete con)ir*ation o) its *essianis*. ,hich. in the ideology o)#ani)est Destiny. ,as. since the (ineteenth century. an article o) )aith )or the A*erican olitical elite$ A*erican neoconser'ati'es recognised this arrange*ent o) *atters *ore clearlythan anyone else$ n the ,ords o) one o) their *ost i*ortant ideologues. 6illia* Kristol.J2:2 ?The T,entieth century ,as the century o) A*erica@s rise. !ut the T,entyB)irstcentury ,ill !e the A*erican century$@ Let us consider that state*ent ,hat di))erence isthere !et,een ?the century o) A*erica@ and ?the A*erican century@7 ?The century o)A*erica@ signi)ies that. in that eriod. the ideology o) li!eralis* )ought ,ith its ri'als+residual traditionalis*. )ascis*. socialis* and %o**unis*- and s*ashed the* to !its$A*erica. ha'ing !een one o) a )e, ,orld o,ers. trans)or*ed into the only one$ And no,.according to the thin"ing o) the neoconser'ati'es. A*erica is due to a))ir* the A*erican*odel. the A*erican ,ay o) li)e. as a ,orld order o!ligatory )or all$ e)ore one@s eyes. the/SA stoed !eing a national go'ern*ent and !eca*e a synony* )or ,orld go'ern*ent$The entire lanet *ust hence)orth !eco*e a ?6orld A*erica@. ?6orld <o'ern*ent@. or?6orld State@$ This is ,hat they call ?the A*erican century@. the roect o) glo!alising theA*erican *odel to glo!al roortions$ This is not si*ly colonisation or a ne, )or* o)i*erialis*. this is a rogra**e o) the total i*le*entation o) the one and onlyideological syste*. coied )ro* A*erican li!eral ideology$ A*erica hence)orth has retensions to the uni'ersal sreading o) a unitary code. ,hich enetrates into the li)e o) eoles and go'ern*ents in a thousand di))erent ,ays I li"e a glo!al net,or" I throughtechnology. the *ar"et econo*y. the olitical *odel o) li!eralBde*ocracy. in)or*ationsyste*s. the *odel o) *ass culture and its *edia roducts. and the esta!lish*ent o) directstrategic control o) A*ericans and their satellites o'er geoolitical rocesses$

The A*erican century is thought o) as a reBs*elting o) the existing ,orld order intoa ne, one. !uilt u on strictly A*erican atterns$ This rocess is conditionally called?de*ocratisation@. and it is directed at a )e, concrete geoolitical encla'es that are. in the)irst lace. ro!le*atic )ro* the oint o) 'ie, o) li!eralis*$ n this ,ay. there ca*e to !ethe roects o) ?the <reater #iddle East@. ?<reater %entral Asia@ and so on$ The *eaning o)the* all consists in the urooting o) inertial national. olitical. econo*ic. social. religiousand cultural *odels and their relace*ent !y the oerational syste* o) A*ericanli!eralis*$ ut it is not that i*ortant ,hether the discussion is a!out the ene*ies o) the/SA or their allies !oth )riends and ene*ies are su!ect to reB)or*atting. as are those ,ho,ish to re*ain neutral$ This is the *eaning o) ?the A*erican century@ li!eralis*. ha'ingde)eated its )or*al ene*ies. enetrates co*letely$ And no, it is not enough to !e on theside o) the /SA in local con)licts +as *any countries !eha'ed that ,ere not li!eral I thoseli"e Pa"istan. Saudi Ara!ia and Tur"ey-$ 5ence)orth. li!eralis* *ust enetrate into thedeths o) all societies and countries ,ithout excetion. and the slightest resistance ,ill !e.



according to the designs o) the neoconser'ati'es. !ro"en I as haened in Ser!ia. ra9 andA)ghanistan$ A*erican critics o) such an aroach I )or instance. the aleoconser'ati'e. Patric" uchanan I declare ?A*erica ac9uired the ,hole ,orld. !ut lost itsel)$@ 5o,e'er. thisdoes not sto neoconser'ati'es. inas*uch as they ta"e the /S not only as a national

go'ern*ent. !ut also as the a'antBgarde o) the li!eral ideology$ And it ,as no accident thatthe neoconser'ati'es e*erged )ro* Trots"yis*$ 3ust as Trots"yites sought a glo!al%o**unist re'olution. *ercilessly criticising Stalin and the idea o) !uilding socialis* inone country. conte*orary neoconser'ati'es call )or a glo!al li!eral re'olution.categorically reecting the call o) ?isolationists@ to li*it the*sel'es to the A*erican !ordersand their historical allies$ Precisely the neoconser'ati'es. setting the tone )or conte*oraryA*erican olitics. *ost deely understand the ideological *eaning o) the )ate o) oliticalteachings at the da,n o) the T,entyB)irst century$ A*erican neoconser'ati'e circles *ostade9uately ercei'e the signi)icance o) the largeBscale changes haening in the ,orld$ Forthe*. ideology re*ains the *ost i*ortant su!ect o) attention. although today it also turnsinto ?so)t ideology@ or ?so)t o,er@$

iberalism an! Postmo!ernity

5a'ing gone o'er )ro* the )or*al oosition to the alternati'e ideologies to thene, hase o) introduction on the ,orld scale. the li!eral ideology changes its status$ n theeoch o) *odernity. li!eralis* al,ays coexisted ,ith nonBli!eralis*. ,hich *eans that it,as an o!ect o) choice li"e ,ith *odern co*uter technology. ,here one cantheoretically select a co*uter ,ith a #icroso)t. #ac OS or Linux oerating syste*$ A)terde)eating its ri'als. li!eralis* !rought !ac" a *onooly on ideological thin"ing it !eca*ethe sole ideology. not allo,ing any other alongside itsel)$ One could say that it s,itchedo'er )ro* the le'el o) a rogra**e to the le'el o) an oerating syste*. ha'ing !eco*eso*ething co**on$ (otice. co*ing to a store and selecting a co*uter. ,e *ore o)tenthan not do not say. ?<i'e *e a co*uter that runs #icroso)t$@ 6e si*ly say. ?<i'e *e aco*uter$@ And in accordance ,ith our silence. ,e are sold a co*uter ,ith a #icroso)toerating syste*$ So it is ,ith li!eralis* it is i*lanted in us !y itsel). li"e so*ethingstandard. ,hich it ,ould !e a!surd and ointless to contest$ The content o) li!eralis* changes. s,itching o'er )ro* the le'el o) exression tothe le'el o) seech$ Li!eralis* !eco*es not roer li!eralis*. !ut su!Baudition. silentagree*ent. consensus$ This corresonds to the s,itcho'er )ro* the eoch o) *odernity to ost*odernity$ n ost*odernity. li!eralis*. reser'ing and e'en increasing its in)luence.e'er *ore rarely roects an intelligent and )reely adoted olitical hilosohy it !eco*esunconscious. sel)Bunderstood and instincti'e$ This instincti'e li!eralis*. ha'ing retencesto trans)or* itsel) into the generally nonBconscious ?*atrix@ o) conte*orariness. graduallyac9uires grotes9ue characteristics$ Fro* the classical rinciles o) li!eralis*. ,hich ha'e !eco*e unconscious +?the ,orld reser'e unconscious@ could !e used as an analogyalongside the dollar as the ?,orld reser'e currency@-. the grotes9ue ,ays o) ost*odernculture are !orn$ This is already a sui generis ostBli!eralis*. )ollo,ing )ro* the total'ictory o) classical li!eralis*. !ut leading it to extre*e conclusions$

Thus there arises the anora*a o) ostBli!eral grotes9ues



M The *easure o) things !eco*es not the indi'idual. !ut the ostBindi'idual. ?thedi'idual@. accidentally laying an ironic co*!ination o) arts o) eole +his organs. hisclones. his si*ulacra I all the ,ay u to cy!orgs and *utants- M Pri'ate roerty is idolised. ?transcendentalised@. and trans)or*s )ro* that ,hicha *an o,ns to that ,hich o,ns the *an

M E9uality o) oortunity turns into e9uality o) the conte*lation o) oortunities+the society o) the sectacle I <uy De!ord- M elie) in the contractual character o) all olitical and social institutions gro,s intoan e9ualisation o) the real and the 'irtual. and the ,orld !eco*es a technical *odel M All )or*s o) nonBindi'idual authorities disaear altogether. and any indi'idual is)ree to thin" a!out the ,orld ho,soe'er he sees )it +the crisis o) co**on rationality- M The rincile o) the searation o) o,ers trans)or*s into the idea o) a constantelectronic re)erendu* +a sort o) electronic arlia*ent-. ,here each nternet user continually?'otes@ on any decision !y gi'ing his oinion in any nu*!er o) )oru*s. ,hich in turn cedes o,er to each indi'idual citiHen +each !eco*ing. in e))ect. his o,n !ranch o) go'ern*ent- M ?%i'il society@ co*letely dislaces go'ern*ent and con'erts into a glo!al.cos*oolitan *elting ot M Fro* the thesis ?econo*y is destiny@ it ta"es u the thesis ?the nu*erical code Ithat is destiny@. so )ar as ,or". *oney. the *ar"et. roduction. consu*tion I e'erything !eco*es 'irtual$

So*e li!erals and neoconser'ati'es ,ere terri)ied at that rosect. ,hich oened uas a conse9uence o) the ideological 'ictory o) li!eralis*. !e)ore the transition to ostBli!eralis* and ost*odernity$ Thus. Fu"uya*a. the author o) the thesis o) the li!eral ?endo) history@ in the last decade. has called on the /S and the 6est ?to turn !ac"@ and to holdo'er the re'ious hase o) ?'intage@ classical li!eralis*. ,ith the *ar"et. the nationBstateand its custo*ary scienti)ic rationalis*. in order to a'oid sliding into the ostBli!eralchas*$ ut in this. he is contradicting hi*sel) the logic o) the trans)or*ation )ro* nor*alli!eralis* to the li!eralis* o) ost*odernity is neither ar!itrary nor 'oluntary it is ,rittenin the 'ery structure o) the li!eral ideology in the course o) the gradual li!eration o) *an)ro* all that ,hich is not hi*sel) +)ro* all nonBhu*an and suraBindi'idual 'alues andideals-. one *ust sooner or later )ree a *an )ro* his o,n sel)$ And the *ost )righteningcrisis o) the indi'idual does not !egin ,hen he is )ighting alternati'e ideologies that deny*an is the highest 'alue. !ut ,hen he attains his conclusi'e and irre'ersi!le 'ictory$

iberalism in Contem.orary &ussia

) ,e ,ere to uxtaose all the a)ore*entioned a!out li!eralis* ,ith ,hat isunderstood !y li!eralis* in Russia. ,e ,ould ha'e to ad*it that there is no li!eralis* here$There are li!erals. !ut no li!eralis*$ /ntil the !eginning o) the 1CC0s. #arxist ideology)or*ally do*inated in Russia. and raised u )ro* childhood the outright *aority o) those eole ,ho. in one ,ay or another. in)luence the decisions o) go'ern*ent today$ The rinciles o) li!eralis*. in the )irst lace. ,ere )oreign to the instincti'e )oundations o)Russian society they ,ere se'erely ersecuted !y the ideological organs in the /SSR. and,ere either un"no,n or else construed in a caricatured and )rag*entary ,ay$ The sole



*eaning o) ?li!eralis*@ in Russia in the 1CC0s ,as )reedo* )ro* RussianBSo'iet oliticalBecono*ic traditions and an uncritical. ignorant and arodic i*itation o) the 6est$Practically none o) the ostBSo'iet elite selected li!eralis* consciously and deli!eratelyuntil the last *o*ent o) the )all o) the /SSR. the leaders o) Russian li!eralis* eulogisedthe %o**unist Party. the ideas o) #arx. the Plan and socialis*. ,hile the oligarchs *ade a

li'ing in the %o**ittee o) Ko*so*olsJ2:8 or ser'ed in the K<$ Li!eralis* as a oliticalideology interested no one not a enny ,as aid )or it$ Such a chea and croo"edli!eralis* ,as *aintained in the 1CC0s as an ersatH ideology )or ostBSo'iet Russia$ utinstead o) *astering li!eral rinciles. its suorters and reachers engaged in careeris*. ri'atisation and setting u their o,n little deals. in the !est case )ul)illing the guidelines o) the 6estern curators o) the !rea"do,n o) the So'iet and Russian state$ This ,as anideological disintegration o) the re'ious structure ,ithout erecting anything ne, in its lace at all$ (o one e'en really chose the du!ious ?)reedo* )ro*@$

6hen Putin ca*e to o,er and atte*ted to turn the rocess o) Russia@sdisintegration around. he encountered. to a large *easure. no ideological oosition$ 5e,as challenged !y concrete econo*ic clans. ,hose interests he discerned. and the *oreacti'e agency o) in)luence. deely entrenched in esionage in the ser'ice o) the 6est$ Thea!solute *aority o) li!erals 9uic"ly trans)or*ed the*sel'es into ?!ac"ers o) [email protected] the*sel'es under the indi'idual atriotic sy*athies o) the ne, leader$ E'eniconic )igures o) Russian li!eralis* I <aidar.J2:: %hu!ais.J2:; etc$ I !eha'ed li"e !anal oortunists they could not care less a!out the ideological content o) Putin@s re)or*s$ n Russia. irresecti'e o) the ,hole eriod o) the 1CC0s. li!eralis* did not enetratedeely and did not sa,n a olitical generation o) authentic. con'inced li!erals$ t oeratedon Russia *ainly )ro* ,ithout. ,hich led in the end to a ,orsening o) relations ,ith the/S. to the o!struction o) Putin and his course in the 6est. and. in resonse. to his #unichseech$J2:=

ut inso)ar as the nu*!er o) conscious li!erals during the critical *o*ent o)change in Russia turned out to !e not *ore than the nu*!er o) conscious %o**unists atthe end o) the 1C0s. Putin did not insist on their ideological harass*ent. oting to controlonly the *ore un!ridled o) the li!eral oligarchs and the direct agents o) in)luence ,ho !eca*e i*udent through la,lessness$ ntuiti'ely stri'ing to reser'e and consolidateRussian so'ereignty. Putin entered into a con)lict ,ith the li!eral 6est and its lans )orglo!alisation. !ut ,ithout )or*ing his actions into an alternati'e ideology$ This ,as *ostly !ecause there ,ere so 'ery )e, con'inced li!erals in Russia$ The real li!eral is the one ,ho acts in co*liance ,ith the )unda*ental rincileso) li!eralis*. including in those instances ,hen to do so could lead to seriousconse9uences. reressions and e'en deri'ation o) li)e$ ) eole turn out to !e li!erals only,hen li!eralis* is er*itted. in )ashion or e'en out o) o!ligation. ready at the )irstdi))iculty to reudiate these rinciles. such ?li!eralis*@ has no relation to the real "ind$ tsee*s Khodor"o's"y.J2:> the ?icon@ o) conte*orary Russian li!erals. understood that.ha'ing sent so*e ti*e in rison$ ut in this. it see*s to *e. he is an excetion a*ong theli!erals ,ho re*ain )ree$

The Crusa!e A)ainst the %est



5o,e'er *uch li!eralis* today clai*s that there are no alternati'es. there is al,aysa choice in hu*an history$ 6hile *an exists. he is )ree to choose !oth ,hat e'eryonechooses. and ,hat no one does$ Li!eralis* +and. !y the ,ay. the /S and the 6est- todaydoes not o))er itsel) u as an otion a*ong *any to re)er it calls this decision the only

one ossi!le$ And this is not a usual ar!itrariness the logic o) the olitical history o)*odernity a'o,s the 'alidity o) such an aroach$ O) course. one could i*agine that *any eole on the lanet ca*e late to thea,areness o) ,hat haened at the end o) the T,entieth and the start o) the T,entyB)irstcentury. and !y inertia !elie'e in socialis*. %o**unis* and e'en religion$ Or *ay!e thatso*eone does not accet li!eralis* )or so*e other local or indi'idual consideration I )orinstance. a)ter realising that. in such a syste*. he ,ould )ind hi*sel) a*ong ?losers@$ utthis does not *atter *uch all syste*atic and )oundational alternati'es are crushed. andso*eone@s eriheral. trou!led and unintelligent dissatis)action. lainly. in oliticalBideological ter*s. a))ects nothing$

(e'ertheless. e'en in the ne, hase o) its sel)Be'ident i*osition. li!eralis* +and ostBli!eralis*- *ay +and *ust I !elie'e this- !e reudiated$ And i) !ehind it. therestands the )ull *ight o) the inertia o) *odernity. the sirit o) the Enlighten*ent and thelogic o) the olitical and econo*ic history o) Euroean hu*anity o) the last centuries. it*ust !e reudiated together ,ith *odernity. the Enlighten*ent. and Euroean hu*anityaltogether$ #oreo'er. only the ac"no,ledge*ent o) li!eralis* as )ate. as a )unda*entalin)luence. co*rising the *arch o) 6estern Euroean history. ,ill allo, us really to say?no@ to li!eralis*$ 6e should reudiate it in its caacity as a glo!al *etahysical )actor. andnot as a articular. accidental heresy. or as a distortion o) nor*al de'elo*ent$ The aththat hu*anity entered uon in the *odern era led recisely to li!eralis* and to thereudiation o) <od. tradition. co**unity. ethnicity. e*ires and "ingdo*s$ Such a ath istread entirely logically ha'ing decided to li!erate itsel) )ro* e'erything that "ees *an inchec". the *an o) the *odern era reached his logical aogee !e)ore our eyes he is li!erated)ro* hi*sel)$ The logic o) ,orld li!eralis* and glo!alisation ulls us into the a!yss o) ost*odern dissolution and 'irtuality$ Our youth already ha'e one )oot in it the codes o)li!eral glo!alis* are e))ecti'ely introduced on an unconscious le'el I through ha!its.co**ercials. gla*our. technology. the *edia. cele!rities$ The usual heno*enon no, isthe loss o) identity. and already not si*ly only national or cultural identity. !ut e'ensexual. and soon enough e'en hu*an identity$ And de)enders o) hu*an rights. not noticingthe tragedy o) the entire eoles that they sacri)ice to their cruel lan o) ?the ne, ,orldorder@. ,ill ho,l to*orro, a!out transgressions against the rights o) cy!orgs or clones$ The eole@s re)usal to adot li!eralis* is co*letely understanda!le. and can !e*et at e'ery turn$ ut it ,ill re*ain i*otent and ine))ecti'e until ,e recognise that ,e aredealing not ,ith an accident. !ut ,ith so*ething syste*ic not ,ith a te*orary de'iation)ro* the nor*. !ut ,ith a )atal. incura!le disease. the origins o) ,hich ,e should see" inthose eriods in ,hich to *any e'erything see*ed unclouded and clear. and hu*anitysee*ed to enter into the eoch o) rogress. de'elo*ent. )reedo* and e9ual rights$ ut this,as si*ly a syndro*e o) aroaching agony$ Li!eralis* is an a!solute e'il not only in its)actual e*!odi*ent. !ut also in its )unda*ental theoretical resuositions$ And its 'ictory.its ,orld triu*h. only underscores and dislays those *ost ,ic"ed 9ualities. ,hich earlier,ere 'eiled$



?Freedo* )ro*@ is the *ost disgusting )or*ula o) sla'ery. inas*uch as it te*ts*an to an insurrection against <od. against traditional 'alues. against the *oral andsiritual )oundations o) his eole and his culture$

And e'en i) li!eralis* ,on all the )or*al !attles and !rought us indeed to the cuso) ?an A*erican century@. the real !attle is still ahead$ ut it ta"es lace only a)ter the

authentic *eaning o) the ast ,ill !e genuinely understood. ,hen the *etahysical*eaning o) li!eralis* and its )ate)ul 'ictory !eco*es "no,n in the right *easure and theright roortions$ Only tearing it out !y its roots can de)eat this e'il. and do not excludethat such a 'ictory ,ill necessitate erasing )ro* the )ace o) the Earth those siritual and hysical halos )ro* ,hich arose the glo!al heresy. ,hich insists that ?*an is the *easure o) all things@$J2: Only a glo!al crusade against the /S. the 6est. glo!alisation. and their oliticalBideological exression. li!eralis*. is caa!le o) !eco*ing an ade9uate resonse$ The ela!oration o) the ideology o) this %rusader ca*aign. undou!tedly. is a *atter)or Russia not to ursue alone. !ut together ,ith all the ,orld o,ers. ,ho. in one ,ay oranother. oose ?the A*erican century@$ (e'ertheless. in any case this ideology *ust !egin,ith the recognition o) the )atal role o) li!eralis*. ,hich has characterised the ath o) the6est )ro* the *o*ent ,hen it reected the 'alues o) <od and Tradition$



10 The ?ntolo)y of the Future

*s there a )uture7 The 9uestion is legiti*ate !ecause it ro'o"es thin"ing a!out theontology o) ti*e$ Bhat is. or at least. is no,7 Precisely !ecause o) the )act o) its !eing no,.it is considered as !eing roer according to the *ultitude o) our direct. e*irical ercetions$ Bhat $as. or the )acts o) that ,hich has existed re'iously. is certi)ied !y thehistorical record and other re*nants$ ut in !oth cases. )orgery or *isunderstanding is ossi!le$ There)ore. the existence o) $hat has yet to !e is highly 9uestiona!le. at !est$ #artin 5eidegger so"e a!out three ecstasies o) ti*eJ2:C the ast. the resent andthe )uture$ Aarently. there are three ontological argu*ents relati'e to these threeecstasies i**ediacy +there isVthere is not- is related to the resent docu*entary +there,asVthere ,as not- is related to the ast and ro!a!ilistic +there ,ill !eV there ,ill not !e-is related to the )uture$ t see*s that ,e could create a hierarchy. !ased on the e'idencethere is. there ,as. there ,ill !e$ ?There is@ is *ost e'ident$ ?There ,ill !e@ is *ost dou!t)ul$?There ,as@ is in the *iddle$ The )uture is the *ost unrelia!le a*ong the three ecstasies o)ti*e$ The )uture cannot !e ta"en into consideration to the sa*e degree as ?there is@ or ?there,as@$ ?There ,as.@ ,as. or at least ,e !elie'e that it ,as )ro* the e'idence at hand$%oncerning the )uture. you cannot "no, )or certain$ A gi'en e'ent or thing could haen. !ut *ost li"ely ,ill not$ Thus. the )uture lac"s ?!eing@ co*ared ,ith the other ecstasies o)ti*e$ Fro* this oint ,e could roceed in se'eral di))erent directions$ For exa*le. ,ecould 9uestion the solidity o) ontological argu*ents concerning the *ost e'ident *o*ent I the resent$ This recalls Kant and his dou!ts a!out the inner !eing o) the o!ect$ The )acto) si*ly ercei'ing so*ething is not enough )or a de)initi'e declaration o) its !eing$ Thisis the (ing an sich +theBthingBinBitsel)- conundru* o) Kantian hilosohy$ (ot pure reason. !ut only practical reason gi'es !eing to an o!ect. !ased on the *oral i*erati'e$ An o!ectshould ha'e !eing$ t ,ould !e good )or it to ha'e it$ There)ore. it has to ha'e it$ ) the ?!eing@ o) the resent. as the *ost e'ident o) all the *o*ents o) ti*e. can !eseriously ut in dou!t. then ,e are arri'ing at an interesting oint all three *o*ents o)ti*e are then ontologically unro'a!le and un'eri)ia!le and concern only the gnoseologicle'el. relating to the hilosohy o) "no,ledge and the hu*an )aculty )or learning$ This is essi*istic concerning the resent. ,hose reality ,e ha!itually ta"e )or granted. !ut isoti*istic concerning the t,o other *o*ents. the ast and the )uture$ The ast and the)uture there!y ac9uire e9ual consideration ,ith the resent$ Fro* the ersecti'e o) urereason. the resent. ast and )uture all ha'e e9ual heno*enological 'alue$ The )uture. inthis case. is the heno*enon. and hence. heno*enologically sea"ing. it is$ eing the heno*enon itsel). the )uture is and it is real $ The )uture. there)ore. is actual$ Kant. analysing the a priori )or*s o) sensi!ility. uts ti*e nearer to the su!ect. andsace nearer to the o!ect$ t indicates that ti*e !elongs closest to the or!it o) the su!ect$Ti*e is hence su!ecti'e$ t is the transcendental su!ect that installs ti*e in the ercetion



o) the o!ect$ (o, let us change ersecti'e and consider ti*e heno*enologically$ 5usserl roosed to study ti*e through the use o) *usic$ The consciousness o) hearing the *usic isnot !ased on the strict identi)ication o) notes sounding in a concrete. discrete *o*ent$5earing *usic is so*ething di))erent )ro* hearing an indi'idual note that sounds no,. in

the resent$ The consciousness o) *usic occurs !y hearing an indi'idual note that soundsno,. in the resent. as ,ell as recalling the ast notes that are dissol'ing little !y little intonothingness$ 5o,e'er. their resonance ersists in the consciousness and gi'es *usic itsaesthetic sense$ 5usserl calls it ?the continuous instance@$ The ast is resent in the resent$The resent thus !eco*es continuous and includes the ast as a 'anishing resence$ This is the *ethodological "ey )or the understanding o) history$ 5istory isa,areness o) the resence o) the ast in the resent$ The 'anishing e'ents continue to soundin the act o) recalling o) the*$ %lio and Polyhy*nia. the #uses o) 5istory and Ti*eresecti'ely in <ree" *ythology. are sisters$ This recalling is necessary to gi'e us our senseo) the resent$ The anamnesis[2<>] o) Plato has the sa*e )unction$ The soul should recallthe hidden ast o) its re'ious li'es in order to reconstruct the ,holeness o) the *elody o)destiny$ Only thus could it !e layed har*oniously$ The )uture should. there)ore. !e understood in this context$ The )uture is continuousin the resent$ (ot the *o*ent o) novum"[2<=] !ut the rocess o) the )ading o) the resentinto the ast$ The )uture is the tailBend o) the resent. its resonance$ 6e li'e the )uture ustno,. and already no,. ,hen ,e lay the note o) the *elody o) li)e$ The )uture is the rocess o) the death o) the resent. attention to the dissolution o) *elody into the totality o)har*ony$ The novum aears in the )uture only ,hen the har*ony is lost. ,hen ourattention )alls aslee. and then suddenly ,e a,a"en and cannot identi)y the sounds that ,ehear$ #o*entarily. they si*ly *a"e no sense$ That is the no'u* sontaneousinco*rehension o) ,hat is going on in the ecstasy o) ti*e$ t is the nature o) discreet.discontinuous e'ents$ t is the susended *o*ent o) !eing ,ithout history. and hence,ithout a sense o) a,areness and consciousness$ Ed*und 5usserl dug *uch deeer into the heno*enology o) ti*e$ 5e disco'eredthe ne, instance o) consciousness lying underneath the le'el ,here the nature o) ti*e. asillu*inated !y *usic. is ercei'ed$ According to 5usserl. !eneath this le'el there isanother. ulti*ate one. ,hich is resonsi!le )or our ercetion o) ,hat is no, ,ith the )orceo) e'idence. and a *uch *ore intensi'e taste o) reality that recalls the e'erBdying ast$ Thisinstance is consciousness itsel). the consciousness as such that recedes the intentionalityand the dualist nature o) arehension. !eing necessarily di'ided into t,o arts I the ercei'ed and the ercei'ing$ n the resent. the consciousness ercei'es itsel) and nothingelse$ That is the ulti*ate exerience o) the last source o) reality$ According to 5usserl. the)oundation o) all consciousness is transcendental su!ecti'ity. )ro* ,hence it concei'esitsel) as a "ind o) short circuit$ This exerience is sel)Bre)erential$ n it. there is the ercetion o) ure !eing as the resence o) the su!ecti'ity o) consciousness$ This short circuit causes all "inds o) dualities to !e !orn I the logical ones and thete*oral ones$ The necessity o) stoing this trau*a is *ani)est in the creation o) ti*e. thearticulation o) the three *o*ents o) ti*e$ %onsciousness o) ti*e is necessary to hide the resent. ,hich is the trau*atic exerience o) the sel)Bre)erential nature o) ureconsciousness$ ntentionality and logical udg*ents are all rooted in this e'asion o) the ercetion o) the ain o) the 'oid ,here!y consciousness !eco*es a,are o) itsel)$ Such an attitude to the le'els o) consciousness exlains the origin o) ti*e as the



e'asion o) the resent. and the un!eara!le tension o) the ure resence o) the sa*e$ Thistension is i**ediately relie'ed !y the exansion o) all the i*agina!le tyes o) dualitiesthat constitute the textures o) the continuous rocess o) ti*e$ The *odel o) this rocess isthe creation o) the three *o*ents o) ti*e$ The logical and satial sy**etries )ollo, Isuch dualities as yesVno. trueV)alse. highVlo,. rightVle)t. hereVthere. and so on$ e)oreVa)ter

!elongs to the sa*e cadence$ Ti*e constitutes consciousness running )ro* the un!eara!lecon)rontation ,ith itsel)$ ut this con)rontation is ine'ita!le. so the resent. and the high recision o) its existential ercetion. is !orn$ 6hat is *ost i*ortant in this interretation o) the *orhology o) ti*e7 The ideathat ti*e recedes the o!ect. and that in the construction o) ti*e ,e should see" an inner deth o) consciousness. rather than a consciousness rooted in outer heno*ena constituted !y the su!ecti'e rocess o) trau*atic sel)Ba,areness$ The ,orld around us !eco*es ,hat itis !y the )unda*ental action o) presencing acco*lished !y the *ind$ 6hen the *indslees. reality lac"s the sense o) resent existence$ t is )ully i**ersed in a continuousdrea*$ The ,orld is created !y ti*e. and ti*e. in its turn. is the *ani)estation o) sel)Ba,aresu!ecti'ity. an intrasu!ectivity$ These re*ar"s lead us to considerations o) the )uture I rognostication. roection.and analysis o) the )uture$ #o'ing )ro* *an to society. and )ro* anthroology to sociology. ,e can a))ir* the)uture as so*ething a!solutely su!ecti'e in nature. and so. in this context. it is so*ethingsocial$ The )uture is social !ecause it is a historical )eature and not i**anent to an o!ect@snature$ The o!ect has no )uture$ The Earth. ani*als. stones. *achines I all ha'e no )uture$Only that ,hich is included in the hu*an social context can ta"e art in the )uture. and thenonly indirectly$ 6ithout sel)Bre)erential consciousness. there can !e no ti*e$ Ti*e is that,hich is inside us. and ,hat *a"es us ,hat ,ho ,e are$ Ti*e is *an@s ulti*ate identity$ This su!ecti'ity o) ti*e does not *ean that rognostication ,ill !e sel)B)ul)illing rohecy. as er Ro!ert K$ #erton.J2;2 nor that any e'ent is realisa!le a riori$ The )utureis strictly deter*ined. not so*ething 'oluntary$ Ti*e. !eing historical. is rede)ined recisely !y its historical content$ The su!ect is not )ree )ro* its structure. and *ore thanthis. it is a!solutely ensla'ed !y it$ Ti*e needs the )uture as a 'oid )or the continuous)ading o) the resent and. artially. o) the ast$ 6ithout the )uture. the su!ect ,ill not ha'ethe sace necessary to e'ade. running )ro* the i*ossi!le encounter ,ith itsel). )ro* theshort circuit *entioned a!o'e$ The )roHen *o*ent o) the resent ,ithout the )uture is thato) death$

Society needs the )uture to run )ro* itsel) )urther and )urther$ The chronicle o) sucha run is the sense o) history$ Society re9uires a narrati'e o) the ast$ The )uture is rede)ined !y the structure o) the su!ect$ That is ,hy the )uture is strictly de)ined$ Thesu!ect cannot sto itsel) )ro* deloying the chains o) reason. it cannot not thin". andcannot constitute the te*oral cadences$ The )uture is in the sa*e *easure as the resentand ast$ 6here ti*e is. the )uture is also$ The )uture *a"es sense$ t *a"es sense e'en !e)ore it haens$ #ore than this. the)uture *a"es sense even i% it ,ill ne'er haen$ n this lies the se*antic 'alue o) rohecyand rognosis e'en i) it does not occur. it is also regnant ,ith *eaning and hels exlainthe resent$ Prohecies and rognosis. )urther. hel us to discern the *eaning o) the )uture$6hen the )uture re)utes the exectations o) rohecy and rognosis. the )act o) theirre)utation gi'es sense to the )uture. !ecause our understanding o) it consists. in art. in ,hat,as not realised$ /n)ul)illed rohecy has exactly the sa*e i*ortance as )ul)illed



rohecy$ The )uture can !e analysed ,ith the sa*e accuracy as the resent and the ast$ Theonly uni9ue )eatures o) the )uture are the )lash o) the encounter o) the deeestconsciousness ,ith itsel). and the intensi'e shoc" that results )ro* a consciousunderstanding o) the resent )or ,hat it is$ 6hat the resent is I is the note that sounds

no,$ ut it is not *usic. and can !e analysed$ The isolated note says nothing$ t con'eysnothing to us$ t is understanda!le only !y ta"ing into consideration and in the context o)the other notes o) the articular iece o) *usic$ The context gi'es it sense$ So. in thecontent o) ti*e. it is so*ething ,hole that is disosed a riori in the three *o*ents o) ti*e$6e exerience ti*e in its totality$ There)ore. the )uture is already laid out ,ith the sense o)*usic$ 5istory is not only our *e*ory o) the ast$ t is also the exlication o) the resentand the exerience o) the )uture$ 6hen ,e understand history and its logic ,ell. ,e caneasily guess ,hat ,ill )ollo,. ,hat is going to haen. and ,hich note should co*e next$Kno,ing society. ,e could identi)y in its history the har*ony. the eriods. the re)rains. andthe structure o) the iece$ O) course ,e could encounter surrises. !ut *ost surrising,ould !e the ossi!ility o) one authentic *o*ent o) exeriencing the sel)B"no,ledge o) ure consciousness$ t is ossi!le to !e a,o"en !y the strength o) this inner light o) sel)Bre)lection$ n this trau*atic situation. ,e disco'er our identity !et,een the *ost inner andouter le'els o) our consciousness$ 6e li'e in the creation o) the external ,orld !y theinternal sel)$ ut that is no longer history it is !rea"ing through history. an intrusion to thecentre o) ti*e. ,here ti*e is eternally !eing constructed$ Ti*e srings )ro* this oint$There it exists in the undi))erentiated unity o) all three ecstasies I ast. resent and )uture$ Ti*e can !e constructed and organised in di))erent ,ays$ The ast can !e connected,ith the resent and ,ith the )uture !y di))erent lin"s$ This. circular time. is !ased on aneternal re)rain attern$ n the centre o) circular ti*e. there is the exerience o)consciousness lin"ed to itsel) in the *anner o) a short circuit$ The o,er o) this trau*areects our a,areness o) li)e and !anishes it to the erihery. ,here it !eco*es circularti*e. ,here the )uture !eco*es the ast. and so on. )or eternity$ t is the eternal return o) thesa*e$ Ti*e can !e organised as a regressi'e line. traditional time$ 5ere. the exerience o)the short circuit is laced in the ast$ The ear tries to cature the distant sounds o) the astand truly reroduce it$ n traditional society. ti*e is !ased on the e'erlasting e))ort o)Platonic anamnesis$ #ost i*ortant here is *e*ory and trans*ission$ n this organisationo) ti*e. the )uture and the resent are constructed !y the ast$ Reality and actuality regressinto the ast and are consigned to *e*ory$ Ti*e can also !e constructed as the eretual state o) ,aiting )or the )uture$ This ischiliastic or *essianic ti*e$ 5ere. the short circuit exerience is roected into the )uture$5istory is going to )ul)il itsel) in the )uture. ,here the ulti*ate nature o) reality lies$ Thisorganisation o) ti*e is centred on that ,hich is to co*e$ To*orro, is the )ocus o) thehistorical sense$ eing is oriented to )uture li)e$ There is another construction o) ti*e installed in the o!ect. ,hich is *o'ed to theextre*e erihery o) the su!ect. ,here the o!ecti'e ,orld is )ixed$ This organisation o)ti*e is material time. ti*e introduced in the su!stance o) the hysical ,orld$ This is theti*e o) slaughter. o) the death o) the su!ect$ %onsciousness can construct di))erent )or*s o) ti*e and their co*!inations$ e)orecreating the ,orld )illed ,ith )or*s. the su!ect creates the )or* o) ti*e ,here the ,orld isto !e$



The histories o) di))erent societies are di))erent$ Di))erent. too. are the ieces. the*usicians. the co*osers. the instru*ents. the *usical genre. and the tyes o) notationused !y the*$ That is ,hy hu*anity as a ,hole cannot ha'e a )uture$ t has no )uture$ Tosea" o) the )uture o) hu*anity is 9uite senseless !ecause it co*letely lac"s se*antic'alue. as ,ell as the sense o) these di))erent societal constructions o) history and ti*e$

E'ery society is a searate act o) consciousness. exanded in the rational and te*oralhoriHons$ All are uni9ue and oen$ ut !e)ore co*ing to an understanding o) the the historyo) a gi'en society. ,e should i**erse oursel'es in the deths o) its identity$ The )act thate'ery eole. e'ery culture. e'ery society has its o,n history. *a"es ti*e a local heno*enon. grounded in geograhy$ E'ery society ossesses its o,n te*orality$ For agi'en society. all the *o*ents o) ti*e are di))erent I ast. resent. and )uture$ Societiescan cross and intersect. crossBollinate and interact$ Their sense o) history. ho,e'er. cannot$5istory is local$ A shared sense o) history is ossi!le only on the !asis o) the do*ination o)one society o'er another. and i*osing its o,n history and. thus. its identity on theensla'ed one$ That *eans i) a gi'en society is to ha'e a )uture. it *ust !e its o,n )uture$ ts )utureis )or*ed through aurtenance to the exanding )orces o) the constituent su!ect$ A societyis united through the structures o) the collecti'e consciousness o) the indi'iduals thatco*rise it$ t *eans ,e should unite the se*antic ranges o) our resecti'e asts$ Further. it*eans that in order to ro'e the har*onious corresondences o) the notes and *elodies o)our o,n articular *usical iece. the sy*honic nature o) a gi'en society *ust !e realised$The ast is )ading. !ut ne'er extinguished$ ) the ast ,ere extinguished. the resent ,ouldlose its sense and the )uture the ossi!ility o) occurring$ The )ading o) the ast is anessential characteristic o) ti*e$ The )ading o) the ast is necessary )or the *orhology o)ti*e at the sa*e le'el as the )lash o) the resent and the 'agueness o) the )uture$ There)ore. the *e*!ers o) a society should as" the*sel'es today a!out their )uture$) they ha'e a history. they could ha'e a )uture$ ) they ha'e !oth a history and a )uture.they are$ ) they are. the )uture is i*licit. no,. in the resent$ The )uture is !eing *adeno,$ On this !asis. ,e can esta!lish !oth rognosis and roection$ According to5eidegger. ?thro,nness@ ++e$or%enheit - is a concet that descri!es the interactions o) thesu!ect ,ith its surroundings in e'eryday li)e that cause it to act uon instincts. )or*i**ediate reactions to other eole@s language and actions. ?)lo, ,ith the situation@. and*a"e i**ediate interretations$ eing ?thro,n into a situation@ ,ithout !eing a!le tore)lect on it )irst. and there)ore not acting is also an action. )or re)lection on the situation+i$e$. not acting- is also so*ething that can !e interreted as an action$ One there)ore *ustrely on instinctual interretations. and go ,ith the )lo,$ The thro,nness o) the su!ect+ (asein- )orces it to roect itsel) into the )uture$ Ety*ologically. it is clear the su!ect is)or*ed !y su!Bectu* + su!,acere-. roection I !y roBectu* + pro,acere-$ n !oth cases,e ha'e the Latin 'er! ?to thro,@$ The analysis o) the )uture is rooted in this !yarehending the )uture. ,e are *a"ing it$ There)ore. any consideration o) the )uture is to,or" on history and the consciousness o) ti*e as such$ t is dou!t)ul that one society is caa!le o) co*rehending another society at thesa*e le'el as it is co*rehended !y its o,n *e*!ers$ Such a ossi!ility resuoses theexistence o) the *etaBsociety. the societyB<od. ,hich could oerate ,ith the ulti*atedeths o) consciousness in the sa*e *anner as consciousness oerates ,ith a,areness.noesis"[2<)] intentionality. logic. ti*e. and )inally ,ith the ,orld$ O!'iously. 6estern



society is articularly a))licted ,ith such an ethnocentric aroach and ?uni'ersal@ retensions rooted in its racist and colonialist ast$ ut in the T,entieth century. this ,as ro'en to !e co*letely un)ounded and )alse$ Structuralists. sociologists. culturalanthroologists. ost*odernists. heno*enologist. linguists. existentialists. and so on. ha'eall deloyed con'incing argu*ents de*onstrating that the inner nature o) such an attitude is

rooted in the ,ill to o,er and aranoid i*osition o) one@s o,n identity on the Other$ Thisillness is called 6estern racis*$ The 6est is a local and historical heno*enon$ t is a 'ery acute ci'ilisation. 'ery articular. 'ery arrogant. and 'ery s*art$ ut it is ust one ci'ilisation a*ong *any others$The 6est has history. and is !ecause o) its history$ The atte*t to a!dicate this history in)a'our o) ure uni'ersalis* and in )a'our o) *etaBculture and *etaBlanguage is doo*ed$There are t,o ossi!le outco*es o) this 1- either the 6est ,ill lose its o,n identity and ,ill turn into an auto*aton 2- or it ,ill try to i*ose its o,n history. concei'ed !y itsel) as !eing uni'ersal. onall the other existing ci'ilisations. destroying the* in the rocess. and creating a ne, "indo) glo!al concentration ca* )or their cultures$ The )irst outco*e i*lies a struggle o) auto*atons ,ith hu*anity$ The secondi*lies an ine'ita!le glo!al li!eration *o'e*ent struggling against this neoBi*erialis*$ tis )or the 6est to decide ho, to *anage the conse9uences o) its roer history and itsi*lications$ The 6est can try to close its history. !ut it is unli"ely that it ,ill succeed inclosing the history o) all the others$ (o, is the *o*ent to !egin the )ight )or the historical !eing o) societies$ Thishistorical !eing is ti*e. the sense o) ,hich is constituted su!ecti'ely$ This sense can resideonly in a gi'en society itsel)$ Ti*e is socially and su!ecti'ely constructed$ The 6estcannot intersect ,ith the sense o) nonB6estern societies$ The nonB6estern societies. i$e$ the?Rest@. cannot correctly understand the 6est and its 'alues$ They are in continuous errorthin"ing that they can$ t is )alse$ They cannot$ ut. li"e,ise. 6estern eole cannotunderstand the Rest$ The structures o) the su!ects. its sense o) ti*e. and its *usic are alldi))erent$ The ast. the resent and the )uture o) historical societies cannot !e exosed !yany *etaBculture they are lying too dee and are de)ended )ro* )oreign eyes !y thedestructi'e *ight o) the sel)Bre)erential *o*ent. !y the shoc" o) this great tension$ 6hat)or the 6est is. )or the other cultures is not$ So. ,e are dealing ,ith di))erent concetions o) ti*e and ,ith di))erent )utures$ At last. ,e ha'e co*e to ?the end o) history@ and glo!alisation$ The end o) history isthe logical conclusion o) uni'ersalis*$ The end o) history is the a!olition o) the )uture$5istory roceeds and reaches its ter*inal state$ There is no *ore sace to go on$ ya!olishing the )uture. the entire structure o) ti*e. such as the ast and the resent. are alsoa!olished$ 5o, can this !e ossi!le7 6e could co*are it to the si*ultaneous laying o)all existing notes. sounds. and *elodies o) a *usical iece. resulting in a cacohony. thegnashing and grinding o) teeth$ At the sa*e ti*e. it ,ill ro'o"e a!solute silence. dea)nessand sourness$ 5ence there ,ill !e no sace )or the te*oralisation o) the inner tension o)transcendental su!ecti'ity the short circuit ,ould gro, exonentially ,ithout the ossi!ility o) !eing dissiated$ That *eans the igniting o) a con)lagration. the sa*e )ire thatgoes usually goes handBinBhand ,ith the s,ord$ n order to re'ent the !laHe and the clashing o) s,ords that ,ould result )ro*closing the te*oral and logical relie) 'al'e. the ,orld ,ill stri'e to tra consciousness innet,or"s and 'irtuality. ,here it can run a,ay )ro* the inner ressure o) sel)Ba,areness



,ithout issue$ ) it succeeds. the ne, ,orld o) the *achine "ingdo* ,ill !e created$ Theglo!al net,or"s and cy!ersace are suita!le only )or the existence o) ostBhu*ans. ostBsociety. and ostBculture$ nstead o) )ire ,e ,ill get lightning and electricity$ So*e eole !elie'e Fu"uya*a is already a ro!ot$ <lo!alisation is e9ui'alent to the end o) history$ oth go handBinBhand$ They are

se*antically lin"ed$ Di))erent societies ha'e di))erent histories$ That *eans di))erent)utures$ ) ,e going to *a"e a ?to*orro,@ co**on to all societies existing on the lanet. i),e are going to roose a glo!al )uture. then ,e need )irst to destroy the history o) thoseother societies. to delete their asts. to annihilate the continuous *o*ent o) the resent.'irtualising the realities that are constructed !y the content o) historical ti*e$ A ?co**on)uture@ *eans the deletion o) articular histories$ ut this *eans that no histories at all.including their )utures. ,ill exist$ The co**on )uture is no )uture$ <lo!alisation is thedeath o) ti*e$ <lo!alisation cancels out the transcendental su!ecti'ity o) 5usserl or the (asein o) 5eidegger$ There ,ould !e neither any *ore ti*e. nor !eing$

6e *ust deal ,ith the !i)urcation o) te*oral constructions$ t is ti*e to addressthis 9uestion ,ith all its i*licit ,eight$ (o,. on the e'e o) the end o) history. the edge o)the descent into ostBhistory. ,e could *a"e the decision to gi'e di))erent ontologicalresonses$ 6hen ,e construct the )uture. it should not !e glo!al in scoe$ t cannot !e ust one)uture. ,e *ust ha'e *any )utures$ The transcendental su!ecti'ities. cultures. and societiescan reser'e sace )or the scattering o) energies !orn o) the encounter ,ith onesel). theshort circuit in 9uestion through its te*oralisation that ,ill grant the existence o) theouter ,orld and the continuing o) +al,ays and necessarily- local histories$ Ti*e ,illcontinue. and the ,orld as the exerience o) real presencing . ,ill !e suorted !y thestructure o) the dee su!ecti'ity$ 5istory ,ill re*ain local$ The co**on history *ust !e asy*hony o) the di))erent *usic o) local histories !eing created !y the uni9uechronological rhyth*s o) ti*es. and not one art atte*ting to dro,n out and o'er,hel*the rest until it is the only sound that can !e heard$ The next 9uestion is does the )or*alisation o) the nationBstate correctly andexhausti'ely re)lect the structure o) the transcendental su!ect as the creator o) history76ill )uture historical ti*e necessarily !e national +as constructed !y *odernity-. or ,ill it !e exressed in other ,ays7 #ay!e it ,ill return to reB*odern )or*s7 6hen 5untingtone'o"es ci'ilisations. he ad*its the ossi!ility o) e*ergent localities and local identities !eing di))erent )ro* the existing. *anu)actured. nationBstates$ %i'ilisations are cultural andreligious co**unities I not ethnicBnational ones$ 6e could i*agine a ste !ac",ard. inthe reBnational direction +sla*ic integration- or a ste )or,ard in the ostBnationaldirection +the Euroean /nion or Eurasian /nion- or ,e could tolerate other ci'ilisationsin the )or* o) nationBstates$ The historical narrati'es and the ,ay in ,hich olitics)or*alises ti*e could !e changed$ t *eans there is a lot o) ,or" that should !e done.historically sea"ing$ 6hile so*eone is ali'e. he can change not only the )uture !ut alsothe ast$ The gesture or *eaning)ul action acco*lished in the resent ,ill add a ne, senseto the ast$ Only a)ter death does one@s ast !eco*e the roerty o) another$ 5ence. thehistory o) eoles. societies. and cultures is oen$ They ha'e the ossi!ility to *a"e thea*aHing turn that is necessary to 'ie, their ast )ro* a ne, ersecti'e$ So. history is*usic and the ,or" o) #uses$ Are ci'ilisations destined to clash ,ith each other7 t is not ,ritten in stone historylac"s linear rules$ Di))erence does not auto*atically necessitate clash and struggle$ O)



course. history "no,s ,ar$ ut history "no,s eace as ,ell$ 6ar and eace ha'e al,aysexisted$ 6ar and eace ,ill al,ays !e$ They ser'e to reli'e the tension and the stress o) the resent$ They li!erate and su!ugate horror and death$ Total ,ar and total eace are e9ually*urderous$ The continuation o) the history o) local societies instead o) a single historical

narrati'e ,ill lead to the reser'ation o) !eing. and hence to the ossi!ility )or the )uture tohaen$ The second otion is glo!alisation$ t cancels the )uture$ t re9uires the arri'al o) ostBhu*anity$ t constructs the ostB,orld consisting o) si*ulacra and 'irtual structures$ n lace o) the transcendental su!ect. (asein. society !eco*es a huge co*uter centre. a*atrix. a suerco*uter$ n lace o) ti*e. it creates si*ulacru*s o) the ast. resent and)uture$ The si*ulacru* o) the ast is )alse *e*ory. the roduct o) arti)icial in)luencere,riting historical *e*ory$ The ,allingBo)) o) the transcendental su!ect allo,s the ast to !e changed as i) it ,ere a irated DGD$ An alternate 'ersion o) society could !e loaded as a re9uel$ Such a su!stitution o) the ast is technically ossi!le$ Su))icient control o'er the resent allo,s the ast to !e easily re,ritten$ The su!stitution o) the )uture )ollo,s )ro* this *aniulation$ T,o disarate trac"s*ixed and layed o'er each other roduce cacohonic reercussions in the )uture$ The)uture is etri)ied. and the se*antics o) ti*e !lur. )or". and *ultily$ #aniulating the resent is a little *ore co*licated and re9uires a higher degree o) sohistication$ To re*o'e the resent. the transcendental su!ecti'ity *ust not only !e,alled o)). !ut eradicated$ This resu*es the transition )ro* the hu*an to the ostBhu*an$ De'elo*ents in the hu*an geno*e roect. cloning. ad'ances in ro!ots. and ne,generations o) cy!org all !rings us close to the ad'ent o) ostBhu*anity$ The goal o) this rocess is to roduce creatures that ,ill lac" an existential di*ension ,ith Hero su!ecti'ity$Si*ulacru*s can !e *ade not only out o) reason. !ut also )ro* unconsciousness$ The *osti*ortant )acet o) this rocess is the a!olition o) the resent$ Such ostBhu*an creaturesand inani*ate o!ects I ani*als. 'ehicles. lants. stones. and so on I ha'e no sense o)the resent$

) glo!alisation continues. ,hat is the )ate o) su!ecti'ity7 6hat is the ontology o)the )uture that ,ill I ro!a!ly I ne'er haen7 A )airly unorthodox theory could !esuggested$ Let us assu*e that *ultiolarity is still!orn. that history has ended. and that the roect o) glo!alisation has !eco*e a reality$ 5o, ,ill the )inal exorcis* o) transcendentalsu!ecti'ity !e er)or*ed7 5o, ,ill ?the )inal decision@ concerning the a!olition o) (asein !e i*le*ented7 A)ter all. as long as *an"ind and societies exist. they should *a"e thisdecision )or the*sel'es$ t is i*ossi!le to *a"e an aeal to the Other ,hich could !e !la*ed or raised )or the decision and its result$ Such a re)erence to the Other is acceta!leonly ,hen the Sel) and the Other are one and the sa*e$ ) ,e lose our identity. ,e ,ill alsolose alterity. the caacity )or ?otherness@. and thus the a!ility to distinguish !et,een sel)and notBsel). and conse9uently to assu*e the existence o) any alternati'e 'ie,oint$ So ,eare the authors o) the end o) history ,hich concerns oursel'es and no one else$ Thus ha'ing excluded the resence o) the 8ther" an exlanation is still re9uireda!out ho, *an can acco*lish the last gesture o) sel)Bdestruction$ 5o, can he trans)er theinitiati'es o) existence to the ostBhu*an ,orld. a ,orld that ,ill disaear i**ediatelyuon the exiration o) the last *an I )or there ,ill !e no one le)t to !ear ,itness7 This is a great ro!le*. and it re9uires an e'en deeer insight into the structure o)the transcendental su!ect that generates ti*e and its )or*ulations$ (o!ody else can *a"e



decisions a!out ho, to reset ti*e or to end it. an end that can only !e !rought a!out !yoursel'es through a )inal sel)Bi**olation !y the exaltation o) the short circuit$ 5ence. thesu!ect carries ,ithin itsel) the ossi!ility o) such a chronocide$ <lo!alisation and the endo) history cannot !e reduced to the ,ill o) so*eone other than he ,ho is the source o) thecreation o) ti*e. at least not ,ithin the li*its o) i**anent hilosohy$ %onse9uently. this

can *ean only one thing that ,ithin the deths o) transcendental su!ecti'ity. there liesanother layer ,hich 5usserl had not unco'ered$ 5usserl ,as con'inced that the layer hedisco'ered ,as the last one$ ut it turns out that this is not so$ There has to !e anotherdi*ension yet to !e )ound I the *ost hidden one$ 6e can designate it as the Radical Su!ect$

) 5usserl@s transcendental su!ecti'ity constitutes reality through the exerience o)a *ani)estation o) sel)Ba,areness. the Radical Su!ect is to !e )ound. not on the ,ay out. !ut on the ,ay in$ t sho,s itsel) only in the *o*ent o) ulti*ate historic catastrohe. in thetrau*atic exerience o) the ?short circuit@ ,hich is stronger. and lasts )or a *o*ent longerthan it is ossi!le to endure$ The sa*e exerience that *a"es the transcendental su!ecti'ity *ani)est itsel) anddeloy its content. thus creating ti*e ,ith its intrinsic *usic. is regarded !y the RadicalSu!ect as an in'itation to re'eal itsel) in another *anner I on the other side o) ti*e$ Forthe Radical Su!ect. ti*e I in all its )or*s and con)igurations I is nothing *ore than atra. a tric". a decoy. delaying the real decision$ For the Radical Su!ect. it is not only'irtuality and the electronic net,or"s ,hich are the rison. !ut reality itsel) has already !eco*e so a concentration ca*. an agony. and a torture$ The slu*!er o) history isso*ething contrary to the condition ,here the Radical Su!ect could exist. co*lete itsel).and !eco*e$ The creation o) su!ecti'ity. !eing the secondary )or*ation o) te*orality. isan o!stacle )or its realisation$ ) ,e accet the hyothesis o) the Radical Su!ect. ,e i**ediately con)ront aninstance that exlains ,ho has *ade the decision in )a'or o) glo!alisation. the suicide o)hu*anity. and the end o) history ,ho has concei'ed this lan and *ade it reality$ t canonly there)ore only !e the drastic gesture o) the Radical Su!ect. loo"ing )or li!eration )ro*ti*e through the construction o) nonBte*oral +i*ossi!le- reality$ The Radical Su!ect isinco*ati!le ,ith all "inds o) ti*e$ t 'ehe*ently de*ands antiBti*e. !ased on the exalted)ire o) eternity trans)igured in the radical light$ 6hen e'ery!ody has gone. the only thing that re*ains is those ,ho cannot !e gone$Perhas that is the reason )or this greatest o) all ro!ations$



11 The Ne" Political Anthro.olo)y$ The Political an an! is utations

an as a Function of Politics

%hat *an is. is deri'ed not )ro* hi*sel) as an indi'idual. !ut )ro* olitics$ t is olitics. !eing the disositi'e o) 'iolence and legiti*ate o,er. that de)ines the *an$ t isthe olitical syste* that gi'es us our shae$ #oreo'er. the olitical syste* has anintellectual and concetual o,er. as ,ell as a trans)or*ati'e otential ,ithout li*itations$The ans,er to the anthroological 9uestion rests on the con)iguration o) o,er in society$Po,er itsel) consists o) t,o ele*ents )irst is the o,er to shae the aradig*. integrated insociety through state institutions. and second is o,er as the disositi'e o) 'iolence. ,hichser'es as a *eans to integrate the aradig* into the society$ %onse9uently. the single.highest authority o) o,er and its structure controls our olitical concet o) *an in a gi'ensociety$ The shere o) olitical anthroology e*erges here. the study o) the oliticalconcet o) *an$ ut there is also the concet o) the olitical *an$ The di))erence !et,eenthese t,o categories is that the olitical concet o) *an is the concet o) the *an as such.,hich is installed in us !y the state or the olitical syste*$ The olitical *an is a articular*eans o) correlating *an ,ith this state and olitical syste*$ At )irst. the state or the olitical syste* installs this concet in us. and then it !oth grants and ta"es a,ay our rights$ 5o,e'er. on the reBconcetional le'el. on the le'el o) olitical anthroology. it)alls to us to gi'e +or to ta"e a,ay- our o,n rights and to add +or re*o'e- a olitical status$6e !elie'e that ,e are causa sui. generated ,ithin oursel'es. and only then do ,e )indoursel'es in the shere o) olitics$ n )act. it is olitics that constitutes us$ 6hether ,e are !orn in a *aternity hosital or in an oen )ield. ,hether ,e are carried into a ,ard ,ithelectricity or a dar". s*o"y hut. deends on olitics$ Politics grants us our olitical status.our na*e. and our anthroological structure$ #an@s anthroological structure shi)ts ,henone olitical syste* changes to another$ %onse9uently. the olitical *an and our oliticalanthroology ali"e are gi'en di))erent shaes a)ter the con'ersion )ro* traditional to*odern society$ ) ,e re*ain ,ithin the !ounds o) con'entional oliticalBanthroologicalstructures. ,hich ,ere descri!ed in great detail *y !oo". The Philosophy o% Politics. ,e*ay stress t,o notions$ First. ,e can say. ?Loo" ho, tre*endous the shi)t in the oliticalanthroology is. that resulted )ro* the con'ersion o) the traditional state to the *odernstate$@ 6e *ay !e astonished !y it ,e *ay !e a*aHed. at ho, it is not only the oliticalinstitutions. !ut also *an hi*sel) that is trans)or*ed on the *ost )unda*ental le'el$ utlater. ,e ine'ita!ly encounter the )act that. right no,. ,e are in the state o) shi)ting )ro*the olitical *ode o) *odernity to ost*odernity. and ,e realise that a co*letely ne,'ie, surrounds us$ t !eco*es clear. )ro* our ersecti'e that the ara*eters o) !oth thetraditional and *odern society )lo, one into the other$ n )act. ;omo politicus. the olitical*an. ,as ostulated in !oth o) these aradig*s$ O) course. on the ole o) *odernity. ,e



ha'e the rational. autono*ous indi'idual. and ,e ha'e a article o) a certain holisticense*!le on the other ole$ As )or ost*odernity. it declares that there are no di))erences assuch !et,een these t,o tyes o) society. olitics. and concets o) *an$ t *atters not,hether this 'ery *an is constituted according to the li!eral. indi'idualist aroach or !ythe holistic eidos.J2;: it is #an ,hich is the outco*e$

The +oun!aries of Post-anthro.olo)y an! the ?ri)in of Post-.olitics

At this stage ,e are a!le to single out co*letely ne, sy*to*s o) the tye o) *anconstituted !y the olitics o) ost*odernity depolitisation. autonomisation.microscopisation. and su!, and transhumanisation$ That is. today *an is not regarded as a,hole I his arts are considered to !e indeendent$ t is his desires. e*otions. *oods andinclinations that *atter$ At the sa*e ti*e. ,hile on the one hand attention is trans)erred)ro* the indi'idual to the su!Bindi'idual le'el.on the other hand. the su!Bindi'idual le'el*erges ,ith other su!Bindi'idualities. that is. it enters the do*ain o) the transBindi'idual$The chaos o) a conte*orary dance clu! can !e regarded as a *etahor )or this transBindi'iduality$ t is ossi!le to distinguish !et,een airs. )igures. styles o) exression. andsexes during 9uadrille or e'en roc" dancing. ,hich is late *odernity$ ut. in a *oderndance clu!. there are creatures o) uncertain sex. unde)ined aearance. and 'ague identity.regularly *o'ing to the !eat o) the *usic$ #oreo'er. the dancing has a hyerBindi'idualistic nature the dancers are not *o'ing. they are !eing *o'ed$ 6hat *o'es eachdancer. *o'es the others$ Are they *o'ing searately7 (o. their !odies are *o'ingsi*ultaneously. gi'ing in to a co**on resonance$ So*ething li"e this is haening in olitics the deBindi'idualisation o) the indi'idual and the su!B and transindi'idualisation o) olitical institutions and structures$ Thus. ,e are con)ronting a co*letely ne, olitics. the essence o) ,hich is thedenial o) olitics itsel) as a certain distinct. authoritati'e line$ (o *atter ho, ,e sol'e the9uestion o) o,er +to ,ho* it !elongs I to the elite. to the caste. to the riests. to the,arriors. or to the de*ocratic arlia*ent-. it ,ill still !e a )or*alisation o) oliticalrelations$ nterests. ositions. le'els. statuses. and roles are al,ays 'isi!le$ 6e are dealing,ith a olitical society. !e it *odern or traditional$ ut i) one rooses to re*o'e the 'ery9uestion o) o,er. i) one says there is no such concet. i) ,e are co*elled to ,ithdra,this 9uestion. i) the notion o) the su!ect o) the olitical rocess is )or!idden. it ,ill !eousted !y a rhiHo*atic entity +<illes DeleuHe and FNlix <uattari use the ter* ?rhiHo*e@ and?rhiHo*atic@ to descri!e theory and research that allo,s )or *ultile. nonBhierarchical entryand exit oints in data reresentation and interretation-. ,hich 5ardt and (egri na*e a?*ultitude@$J2;; These ?*ultitudes@ act )or !oth su!ect and authority$ %onse9uently. theconcet o) the State is relaced !y the concet o) the ostBState$ 6hat is the ostBState7 tis the idea o) the a!olition o) the State$ The rocess o) the de*onisation o) the State starts.the !asis o) ,hich is the thesis that the state inter)eres ,ith ri'ate roerty$ The ,ord ?thestate@ itsel) e'entually !eco*es an in'ecti'e. and a)ter this. its a!olition !eco*es ano!'ious *easure$ A)ter that. e'erything that inter)eres ,ith a!solute )reedo* is a!olished$ n the end. all )or*s o) 'ertical sy**etry +the orientation o) a ?to to !otto*@hierarchy- are su!ect to destruction. and e'erything !eco*es horiHontal$ Si*ilarly. the'ertical lines o) o,er and the state !eco*e horiHontal. and thus olitical anthroology.



i*lying this or that constitution o) the indi'idual. dissiates and diserses in the sace o)rhiHo*atic dust$ One could call it apoliteia$J2;= ut i) it really ,ere apoliteia. ,e ,ouldo!ser'e a gradual )ading o) the olitical. its entroy$ ut ,e are not sea"ing a!outapoliteia or indi))erence to,ards olitics$ nstead ,e encounter a deli!erate. axiologicaltrend$ That is the li9uidation o) olitical structures. or the structure o) the olitical. i) ,e

include the structures o) !oth olitical reB*odernity and *odernity$ That is. ,hilecon)ronting ost*odernity. !oth o) the* are reected$ At the sa*e ti*e. in order to acti'elydenounce the olitical. olitical ,ill is re9uired$ t turns out that ost*odernity is loaded,ith olitical *eaning$ And it is loaded ,ith an i*erious. eiste*ologically o!sessional*eaning. and an o!ligatory olitical *eaning o) aolitisation. at that$ That is. this is not ure entroy o) the olitical structure it is a re'olutionary counterBroect. a theoreticalsche*e o) olitical ostBanthroology$ And the core o) this ostBanthroology is. o) course.this rhiHo*atic su!B and transBindi'idual net,or"$ t is this disersed ne!ula o) *ultitudethat is deli!erately destroying the structures o) the ,ill that !elong to the olitical +das

Politische-. in its classical Sch*ittian *eaning$

The Core #ubDects of Post.olitics

Today ,e can su* u the situation in this ,ay ,e add the destructi'e. corrosi'estrategy o) olitical ost*odernity +ossessing the sa*e authoritati'e. o))ensi'edisositi'e- into the shere o) the olitical +,hich is Sch*itt@s classical olitics. including reB*odernity and *odernity-. and ,e recei'e olitics in its ,idest *eaning. in its a!solute*eaning$ This is the A!solute Political +a!solut Politische-. in the !oundaries o) ,hich ,ecan lace t,o !asic anthroological *odels$ t sounds natural the )irst is ?conte*orary*an@. constructed !y the olitical. struggling against olitics as such$ 5e is li"e a dancer ata clu!$ 5e has his !log. he ,atches TG. he retends he 'otes )or the oosition +that is. helatently identi)ies hi*sel) ,ith the destructi'e. antiBstate olitical trend. e'en i) he lac"s a,ellBthoughtBout. coherent olitics-$ 6hen con)ronting any integral olitical concet. hestarts !y saying ?no@. his attitude to,ard it is 'ery aggressi'e. and it creates a seci)icallyBai*ed in)luence$ The other )igure is the olitical soldier + (as politische 'oldat -$ ?The olitical soldier@ is a di))erent concet. de'eloed in the 1C80s. ,hich is a ersonality.su**ing u ,hat ,e ha'e called the classical aroach to das Politische. the classicalaroach to the olitical$ ts de)inition is 'ery ictures9ue the olitical soldier di))ers )ro*the co**on *an !y the )act that he "ills and dies )or olitics$ 5is "illing and ersonaldeath !eco*e an existential ele*ent o) the *ani)estation o) the olitical. and thus. )or hi*the olitical ac9uires an existential di*ension$ The olitician. unli"e the olitical soldier.deals ,ith the olitical. !ut ne'er "ills or dies )or it$ 6hen the olitician con)ronts deathand *urder. he says. ?(o. @d !etter rethin" *y con'ictions$@ This is a ,onder)ul ro*antic i*age. e*loyed as a art o) *odernity and theT,entieth century. ,here ,e could see these slendid olitical soldiers$ (ietHsche@s ,ordsillustrate their role in the history o) the T,entieth century$ Although ,ars in the (ineteenthcentury ,ere )ought )or *aterial goals. ?Ja ,arli"e age Jis aroaching that ,ill a!o'e allrestore honour to !ra'ery For it shall a'e the ,ay )or a still higher age and gather thestrength that the latter ,ill one day need I the age that ,ill carry herois* into the search)or "no,ledge and ,age ,ars )or the sa"e o) thoughts and their conse9uences$@J2;> 6hen



is this ti*e7 t ,as the T,entieth century$ The entirety o) the T,entieth century ,as )illed,ith olitical soldiers "illing each other )or their !elie)s$ They "illed and ,ere "illed$esides. e'ery traditional society +)or exa*le that o) <enghis Khan@s- ,as )ounded !y olitical soldiers$ The Russian E*ire ,as also !uilt !y olitical soldiers$ #odernity ,as'ery sensiti'e to this )igure$ They say the olitical soldier )ights only )or ele'ated and

siritual ideas$ ut that is not the case$ E'en a li!eral can !eco*e a olitical soldier+although there is nothing siritual or no!le in li!eral ideas-$ 5e *ay die )or 9uite senselessideas. !ut he re*ains a olitical soldier. and that is 'ery i*ortant$ The olitical soldier isan instru*ental notion. and should not !e hyer!olised$ t is a char*ing. !ut urelyutilitarian ele*ent o) *odernity$ 6e !elie'e that. on the le'el o) olitical anthroology. this olitical soldier iscon)ronting the deco*osed. rhiHo*atic ostBhu*an android$ 6e register this reading. andit *ay see* that ,e are ready to thro, a,ay our ideological di))erences and )or the olitical soldier to con)ront the ost*odern ,orld$ ut *y thesis is that. )ro* the ersecti'e o) the hase shi)t ,e are in. ,e are li'ing in a society ,here this con)lict is ossi!le. !ut. at the sa*e ti*e. its outco*e is redeter*ined$ n )act. the )igure o) the olitical *an is re*o'ed$ And his anthroological sace is !eing occuied !y a ne, ersonality. a 'ery cunning and susect ersonality. ,hich is not that o) the olitical soldier. !ut. at the sa*e ti*e. is not related to the hissing. rhiHo*atic. t,ittering su!Bindi'idual$This ersonality is the olitical *an@s si*ulacru*$ t is so*ething that i*itates the oliticalsoldier. in the sa*e ,ay that ost*odernity i*itates #odernity$ n the )inal analysis. thereadings do not gi'e us the ?hu*an 's$ ostBhu*an@ scenario$ nstead. ,hat ,e see is theundisguised. rotten li!eral ostBhu*an and the seudoBhu*an. the seudoBsoldier. ,ithin,ho* the general su!stance o) this hase o) history has )ound itsel)$ This is ,hy ,e ha'ethe heno*enon o) conte*orary )ascis*. ,hich is an excellent illustration o) thiscondition$ E'ery last 'estige o) )ascis* that ,as e*!odied !y olitical soldiers ran out in1C:;$ Each and e'ery declared )ascist a)ter 1C:; is a si*ulacru*$ The li!erals@ )ears. ta"ingthe )or* o) )ascists. is a co*lete arody$ They do not di))er *uch )ro* the deco*osedand hal)Bdissol'ed *asses$ %o**unis*. ,hich has held out longer than )ascis*. created itssi*ulacru* ,ithin itsel)$ The late %o**unists ,ere already seudoBolitical soldiers$Today there are no chances )or %o**unis* to return to li)e$ The sa*e goes )or )ascis*$Soon. ,e ,ill see that li!eralis* has arri'ed at the sa*e oint$ At least our li!erals. ,ho arenot really li!erals at all. de*onstrate this gi'e the* so*e *oney. and they ,ill declareanything and e'erything$ 6e are dealing ,ith entities. lac"ing anything rese*!ling theclassical olitical anthroology$

The Fatalism of Postanthro.olo)y an! An)el.olis

As *uch as can !e discerned. ,e are dealing ,ith DeleuHe@s ?)old@ +the concetallo,s )or creati'e thought a!out the roduction o) su!ecti'ity. and ulti*ately a!out the ossi!ilities )or and the roduction o) nonBhu*an )or*s o) su!ecti'ity- ,e ha'e thecon)rontation o) ostBolitical anthroology and the seudoBolitical soldier$ n this case.the antithesis o) the ostBhu*an is the nonBhu*an$ ) ,e )ace it. ,e ac9uire a 'ery co*lexand intriguing ersecti'e$ t is either hantas*agoric desair. to ,hich audrillard.J2;



descri!ing the ,orld ,ith radical ostBhistorical categories. ga'e ,ay. or the )eeling that ,eare not satis)ied ,ith this )old. this ostBanthroological ersecti'e$ 5o,e'er. i) ,e grasthe )atality o) this air. ,e can cal*ly ste !ac" and assess the situation$

5a'ing raised the 9uestion o) anthroology. ,e *ust loo" )or a solution. and at thesa*e ti*e ,e *ust ac"no,ledge this ostBanthroology. that is. not ,ait )or ,hat is

co*ing to arri'e. !ut to consider. instead. that it is already here$ 6hat do ,e gain )ro* this ersecti'e7 thin" that Sch*itt. ,ho created the classical aroach to the olitical. *ightgi'e us so*e hints$ 5e so"e a!out olitical theology$ Sch*itt said that all oliticalideologies and syste*s are integral theological *odels ,ith religions. dog*as. institutions.and rites o) their o,n$ That is ,hy. in order to understand olitics. one *ust regard it as areligious heno*enon$ ut olitical theology resuoses the existence o) the oliticaltelos.J2;C ,hich can !e constructed !y *an. li"e 5o!!es@ eviathan.J2=0 or it can !e o)nonBhu*an construction. such as the %atholic *odel o) imperium. ,hich ,as close toSch*itt@s heart$ (aturally. in the ostBanthroological structure. in ost*odernity. thisaeal to telos as a olitical )actor ,hich un)olds the syste* into an integral theology ,illnot hel us *uch. as ,e ha'e crossed the !oundaries o) olitical theology$ t is i*ossi!le to sea" a!out olitical anthroology ,hile descri!ing the ostBanthroological *odel o) today@s olitics$ 6e are )or!idden to sea" a!out an integral olitical theology !ecause ,e ha'e ,itnessed this )unda*ental *utation o) ?the )old@$ 6hatare ,e allo,ed to sea" a!out7 6e ha'e olitical rocesses. sources o) o,er anddisositi'es o) in)luence. ,e o!ser'e aradig*atic eiste*ologies. ,hich are ushed and ro*oted in the sa*e ,ay as they ,ere in the )ra*e,or" o) classical olitics$ They re*ain,ith us. ,hich *eans that the olitical in its ,ider sense is here. it is si*ly that neither*an nor <od is there$ 6ho is the actor o) this ostBolitics7 There is a certain hyothesisthat call the concet o) Angelopolis. ?the city o) Angels@ or Angelpolitia +angelic olitics-that is a turn )ro* olitical theology to olitical angelology$ 6hat this *eans is that theshere o) the olitical is starting to !e controlled !y and is starting to ground itsel) uon thecon)rontation !et,een suerhu*an entities$ That is entities that are neither hu*an nordi'ine +or not di'ine at all-$ Angelopolis ossesses a huge otential to assign olitical roles,ithout ta"ing hu*anoids and ostBhu*anoids into account$ For exa*le. one *ay thin"that a *an sends an S#S. !ut it is actually the S#S that sends itsel)$ %onsidering thegro,ing le'el o) standardisation and lac" o) originality in these *essages. its o'erBindi'idualistic essence is !eco*ing *ore and *ore e'ident$ There really is a co**and centre in ostBolitics$ There are actors and there aredecisions. !ut they are totally dehu*anised in ost*odernity$ They are !eyond the )ra*eso) anthroology$ 6e can )ind a certain roo) o) this hyothesis in traditional teachings andin traditional eschatologies. ,hich state that the End Ti*es ,ill not !e triggered !y thehu*an hand. !ut that it ,ill sto ust rior to the )inal hour$ The )inal act ,ill not deend on*an$ t ,ill !e a ,ar o) angels. a ,ar o) gods. a con)rontation o) entities. not tied !yhistorical or econo*ic la,s and atterns. and ,hich do not identi)y the*sel'es ,ithreligions or certain olitical elites$ And this angelic ,ar can !e thought o) olitically$ Thatis Angelopolis. or Politische Angelologie. ,hich !ring )or,ard as a concet. de'oid o)*ysticis* and esotericis*. ,hich has the sa*e sense and nature as Sch*itt@s *etahor o)?olitical theology@$ Political angelology *ust !e considered as a *etahor ,hich is !othscienti)ic and rational$ Angelopolis is a *ethod to understand. to interret and toher*eneutically deciher the conte*orary rocesses ,hich surround us and are regardedas !eing alienated )ro* olitical anthroology. )ro* hu*anity as a secies. and as a



olitically institutionalised and constituted notion$



1: Fourth Political Practice

The adherents o) the Fourth Political Theory are in need o) a lan$ The lan is !asedon the )ollo,ing idea i) ,e ha'e the Fourth Political Theory as a set o) concets and atheoretical de)inition. then this theory must !e realised. !ecause e'ery theoreticalconstruction can either !e !rought to li)e. or cannot !ecause o) circu*stances$ There)ore. i) ,e theorise and tal" a!out the Fourth Political Theory. ,e should alsothin" a!out ho, it could !e realised in ractice$ 5o,e'er. this should gi'e us ause. !ecause the Fourth Political Theory strains to conclude the olitical toograhy o)*odernity. ,ith all its i*licit and hidden dualistic *odels therein$ 6e can de'elo asche*e reresenting the correlation !et,een the theory and its ractice in di))erent )ields o) "no,ledge science. *etahysics. religion. hilosohy. technologies. and co**on use$elo, is a ta!le ,ith these di))erent )ields o) "no,ledge on the horiHontal axis and ,itht,o colu*ns on the 'ertical axis. ?Ter* 1@ and ?Ter* 2@$ The )irst colu*n concerns the)ield theoretically. and the second deals ,ith the )ield in ractice$

Fiel!

Term 1

Term :

science

Theory+conte*lation-

Practice+things-

*etahysics

rincile

*ani)estation

religion

*yth



ritual

hilosohy

*entality acti'ity

technology

dea+roect-

realisation+i*le*entation-

co**on use

thin"ing

action

O) course. the consideration o) these colu*ns in itsel) can !ring us to so*e 'eryinteresting conclusions starting ,ith the 9uestion o) ,hat theory is in ter*s o) science +i$e$.conte*lation. 'ision- and ,hat is raxis +the ter*. )or*ed )ro* the <ree" pragma. i$e$.o!ect. o!ecti)ication. acting-$ 6hen the ro!le* o) de)ining ,hat a ?thing@ is +res.herea)ter ?reality@- arose a )e, years ago. the atte*ts to co*e across a counterart o) this !asic ter* in conte*orary hilosohy led to the re'elation that there is no acceta!lee9ui'alent )or this Latin ,ord in <ree" at all$ There is pragma as an ?action@ and the ?act@ atthe sa*e ti*e$ t is an acti'e o!ect. !ut not as an acco*lish*ent$ And there is an?existent@ )ro* Aristotle. ,hich is exounded as res in )urther Latin translations$

There)ore. there is no such ,ord as ?thing@ in <ree". and this is 'ery i*ortant. !ecause it *eans that the concet o) reality is also a!sent$ Reality is )or*ed on the !asis o)res. reality is a roerty o) res. reality is +,hose7 ,hat7- I so*ething re)erring to the?thing@. or ?thingness@$ There)ore. there are the <ree" ,ords pragma. ?existent@ and?ractice@ )or the Latin res$ Pragma is the action and the o!ect at the sa*e ti*e$ t is 'ery interesting the entirety o) <ree" *etahysics e'ol'es !et,een ?theory@ asconte*lation and ?action@ + pra:is-. "eeing short o) se'ere Latin su!ecti'ity. the?thingness@ hidden in the ter* res$ ) ,e a*li)y the a)ore*entioned duality o) this ta!le. ,e ,ould co*e across<uNnon@sJ2=1 *odel o) the ?rincile o) the *ani)ested@J2=2 nota!ly. that the*ani)estation here is closer to the ractice. !ut not to that ,hich is *ani)ested ,e can seethe acti'ity in the second colu*n. concerning ractice$ ) ,e *a"e so*e )urther assertionsin the history and sociology o) religion. ,e ,ould co*e across )unctionalis* and the



hu*an sociology o) #alino,s"i.J2=8 ,hich exa*ines this di'ision !et,een *yth andritual$ The original <ree" de)inition o) *yth *ust !e re*e*!ered *yth is a story !eingtold during a ritual$ The duality o) *yth and ritual is one o) the !asic ite*s extensi'elydiscussed in !oth the history o) religion and o) social anthroology$ n hilosohy can !e

seen the ?*entalityBacti'ity@. or ?*entalBacti'ity@ +this airing and duality o) ter*s issi*ilar to that o) ?theoryBractice@-$ And )inally. technology is rather si*le I it is theduality o) a roect and its realisation$

So. ,e ha'e t,o colu*ns$ ) the Fourth Political Theory is added to the )irstcolu*n. Ter* 1. then ,e can ro!a!ly )ind so*e seci)ic concet in the Fourth PoliticalPractice to lace in the colu*n Ter* 2 in accordance ,ith it$ ) the Fourth Political Theory,as an ideological 'ariation. or so*e co*!ination o) the ele*ents o) the olitical theorieso) *odernity. ,e ,ould )ollo, this strictly$ That is to say. i) ,e create an additionalconcet. constructed o) the sa*e ele*ents and !ased on the sa*e toograhy as the olitical ideologies o) *odernity are. ,e should tal" a!out the )ield not only theoretically. !ut also in ractice. in the colu*n Ter* 2$ And generally. it ,ould !e interesting to do this. !ecause tal"ing a!out se*antic)ields associated ,ith the Fourth Political Theory in connection ,ith the colu*n Ter* 2could !e 'ery use)ul$ ut lea'e this ro!le* )or so*eone else. and roose another ,ay$

The oint is that i) ,e tal" a!out the 'ery core o) the Fourth Political Theory and its)unda*ental ro!le*s. ,e understand that the *ain idea o) the Fourth Political Theory is to,al" a,ay )ro* the dualis* !et,een the su!ect and the o!ect. !et,een intention andrealisation. and )ro* the dual toograhy ,hich the hilosohy o) *odernity. the science o) *odernity. and the politology o) *odernity are !ased on$

t is not *ere chance that ,e tal" a!out (asein as the su!ect o) olitical theory$ (asein" as roosed !y 5eidegger. is a ,ay to o'erco*e the su!ectBo!ect duality. that is.an asiration to )ind the root o) ontology$ 5eidegger *entioned the in$ischen. or the ?!et,een@. ,hile tal"ing a!out theexistence o) (asein$ The rincial nature o) (asein is !eing ?!et,een@$ (asein is in$ischen$ 6e should not use the syste* o) classical olitical dualis*. the scienti)ictoograhy o) !oth *odernity and Aristotle@s ti*e ,hile tal"ing a!out the Fourth PoliticalTheory. and resu*e the )act that the su!ect and its core. the !asis o) the Fourth PoliticalTheory ole. is (asein.

t is necessary. instead. to exa*ine Fourth Political Practice in another ,ay. ta"inginto account 5eidegger@s criticis*s o) constructing nonB)unda*ental ontology. i$e$.ontology as it is$ 5eidegger said that i) ,e ,ant to understand (asein" ,e should realiseand construct a )unda*ental ontology ,hich ,ould not lose contact ,ith the ontic +that,hich exists reality- roots o) (asein" and ,ould not ascend or su!li*ate. sooner or later. toanything correlated ,ith the 2000ByearBold +)ro* Plato. or e'en the last o) the PreBSocratic hilosohers. u to (ietHsche- general hilosohical constructions on ,hich *odernity is !ased$ 6e should ut (asein as the centre and the ole o) the Fourth Political Theory$6hat does this *ean in the context o) ractice7 t *eans that (asein should not !e9uali)ied either as a theoretical construction. or as a rincile$ Should it !e used as a *yth.li"e a narrati'e7 This co*es *uch closer. !ut it should !e care)ully considered$ t shouldnot exactly !e used as a *entality. at least not as an ontological *entality$ Li"e,ise. itshould not !e used as an idea or anything concerning the su!ect$



Keeing this uni'ersal and reBdualistic status o) (asein in 5eidegger@s hilosohyin *ind. ,ant to suggest a re)erence to so*e root. to so*ething that redates this dualis*.to de)ine Fourth Political Practice$ n other ,ords. ,hat is the centre o) Fourth PoliticalPractice7 This centre is so*ething that lies !et,een the colu*ns. !et,een Ter* 1 and Ter*2. !et,een theory and ractice$ ut this does not at all *ean their co*!ination or a hay

*ediu*$ A ?hay *ediu*@ is nonsense that ,e should distance oursel'es )ro*$ 6e shouldnot loo" )or a hay *ediu* or a co*ro*ise o) colu*n 1 and colu*n 2. the olarity o)theory and ractice. !ut ,e should )ind the root that these airs gro, )ro*. their co**onroot$ Fro* the ersecti'e o) (asein analytics. !oth the su!ect and o!ect are ontologicalconstructions. gro,n )ro* the ?!et,een@. i$e$ the in$ischen$ 6e are interested in the instance that !oth theory and ractice aeared )ro*. theinstance ,here theory and ractice are not yet di'ided and. a %ortiori.J2=: are notoosites$ 6e are interested in that "ind o) instance ,here !oth rincile and *ani)estationha'e a co**on root +they can ne'er ha'e a co**on root. not )or a *o*ent. and that is*ost interesting )or us-. that "ind o) instance ,here *yth and ritual are not yet searated. atthat instance ,here *entality and acti'ity are in co**on. ,here idea *eans realisation andrealisation is idea. and ,here thin"ing and acting ha'e one source$ 6e are interested in this 'ery inter*ediate le'el not achie'ed !y a horiHontalconsideration o) these airs. !ut only !y a ne,. nonBhoriHontal di*ension$ /nli"e5egelianis*. #arxis*. co**unication theory. and in rincile. the entire structure o)*odernity. ,e are not interested in anything that sits uon the line !et,een theory and ractice$ 6e are loo"ing )or so*ething that does not !elong to horiHontal su!sace. or toso*e ratioB!ased con)iguration o) the colu*ns. or to the line !et,een theory and ractice$6e are interested in so*ething hidden under the theory and ractice. so*e,here in theco**on root they !oth gro, )ro*$ Fro* this oint o) 'ie,. the 9uestion o) the rioritisation o) either conscience or *atter during the So'iet eriod is a!solutely ,rong$The riority )or us is the ro!le* o) the co**on root. and ,e should gro, the FourthPolitical Theory and its Practice )ro* this root$ 5a'ing ac"no,ledged this notion as !eing !asic. ,e can say that Fourth PoliticalTheory is Theory to the sa*e degree as it is Practice. and it is Practice to the sa*e degreeas it is Theory$

n other ,ords. i) ,e can )eel the ?!et,een@ related in deth o'er these t,ocolu*ns. i) ,e can seiHe the geo*etry o) this olitical 'ector +that is. o) course. its real hilosohical and *etahysical 'ector-. ,e ,ill see that these t,o trees gro, )ro* thesa*e root$ ) ,e )ocus on the su!ect o) the Fourth Political Theory. *eaning (asein orin$ischen. ,e ,ill understand that it does not !elong to the horiHontal disosition !et,eenthese t,o colu*ns$ 6hy do ,e tal" a!out roots !ut not the head7 This is a 'ery serious anddee *o*ent. !ecause ,e should realise the reduction that is !eing *ade$ ) ,e realise thehoriHontal reduction )irst. and ,e get an unsatis)actory result. ,e ,ill conclude that ,eshould instead realise the 'ertical reduction. to *o'e to,ards ontic roots !ut not ontologicalheights$ There)ore. ,e should ostone such notions as the di*ension o) sirit and thedi'ine. and *o'e to,ards chaos and other 'ertical and dethBoriented concets$ (ietHsche said. ?(ot ,hen truth is dirty. !ut ,hen it is shallo, the see"er o)"no,ledge stes reluctantly into its ,ater$@J2=; According to this. ho, can ,e try to )or*a clear concetion o) ,hat Fourth Political Practice is7 y re'ersing the order o) these t,ocolu*ns as a )irst ste$ 6e should o!tain ractice as theory. ta"e rincile as *ani)estation.



*entality as acti'ity and thin"ing as action$ 6hat is Fourth Political Practice7 t isconte*lation$ 6hat is the *ani)estation o) the Fourth Political Practice7 t is a rincile to !e re'ealed$ n ,hat asect is the *yth realised as ritual7 t !eco*es theurgic )act +let usrecognise that (eolatonic theurgy is the reani*ation o) statues-$ 6hat is acti'ity as*entality7 t is the idea that thoughts are *agic. that thoughts can change reality it is a

suggestion that thoughts relace reality as )act$ Fourth Political Practice !rings us to thenature o) the suranatural ,orld. to the antithesis o) 6e!er@sJ2== *etahor in therealisation o) the technological asect o) the roect$ 6hat is the suranatural ,orld7 t is a,orld ,here there is no !arrier !et,een idea and realisation$ t is the rincile o) adoting a*agical 'ie, o) the ,orld !ased on the idea that thought is the only thing that crosses,orlds. and e'erything ,e cross ,ith is nothing *ore than a thought$ 6hat "ind o) thoughtis it7 Pure thought$ The 'ehicle o) Fourth Political Theory and Practice li'es in asuranatural ,orld$ 6hat is ?*enacti'ity@7 t is a transBsu!stance. a trans)or*ation o) siritinto !ody and !ody into sirit. and it is the *ain ro!le* o) her*eticis*$

6e ha'e co*e to the realisation that Fourth Political Practice is not a roughrealisation o) Fourth Political Theory in so*e sace ,here the theory is suggested to !edi))erent )ro* its ractice$ There is no *ore sace. no *ore topos"[2?*] and no *oretoology in Fourth Political Practice aside )ro* theory ,e ha'e annihilated any othersaces !e)ore ,e started. not in the consu**ation. !ut in the 'ery !eginning. !e)ore ,estarted in a reBontological context$ n other ,ords. ,e should not loo" )or,ard +it ,illne'er !e changed- or !ac",ard i) ,e really ,ant to change the s9ualor ,e li'e in. !ecauseall the re*nants that ha'e *ade this ulti*ate )or* o) degeneration ossi!le and real ha'eaeared and !een stored there$ These roots are not *ere chance$ The scraBhea ,e existin is not accidental and has a ro)ound logic$ 5ere. ri*ordial *etahysics is exressed intechni9ues !oth *odern and ost*odern$ Accordingly. the only ath )or real oliticalstruggle is aealing to the Fourth Political Practice as to the roots. )ree )ro* thee'olutionary rocess. )ro* the 'ery concetion to the )inal oint ,here ,e are no,. !ecause either our olitical struggle is soteriological and eschatological. or it has no*eaning$ And here ,e co*e to the last oint$ 6hat does a ,orld a'oiding any duality loo"li"e7 t loo"s li"e ost*odernity. li"e 'irtuality$ The ,ired and 'irtual conte*orary ,orld ust says this is not theory and not ractice. not rincile and not *ani)estation. not *ythand not ritual. not thought and not action$ Girtuality is ust a *oc"ery o) Fourth PoliticalTheory and Practice$ t is counterintuiti'e enough. !ut this ost*odern reality is closer thanall re'ious toologies. including the theological and rotoBtheological$ Girtuality is closerto the 'ery uni9ue *odel o) Fourth Political Theory and Practice than any other ele*ent$

Thus ,e can raise the 9uestion. ho, does our traditionalis* or ne, *etahysicsrelate to ost*odernity7 consider the* to !e 'ery close$ Girtuality tries to *ix these*antic )ields o) the colu*ns on the horiHontal le'el so as to !eco*e indistinguisha!le$6e can say that DeleuHe@s rhiHo*e is a ost*odern and ostBstructural *oc"ery o)5eidegger@s (asein$ They are ali"e and they are o)ten descri!ed in the sa*e ter*s$ ut ayattention to the )act o) ho, ost*odernis* sol'es the ro!le* o) the re'ersal o) thecolu*n@s order$ t sol'es the ro!le* !y aealing to the sur)ace. and this is the *ain idea,e see ,ith DeleuHe$ Re*e*!er his interretation o) Artaud@sJ2= ?!ody ,ithout [email protected]=C his interretation o) the necessity o) destruction. o) the le'eling o) structure. and hisinterretation o) *an@s eider*is. his outer layer. as the !asis )or the screen onto ,hich hisi*age is roected$ t is a oint o) *oc"ery ,here Fourth Political Theory and



ost*odernis* *eet each other$ ) the colu*ns *ix horiHontally. so*e *adness aears$6e can use the thesis that ;omo integros. the co*lete integral *an. consists o) ;omo

sapiens and ;omo demens$J2>0 DeleuHe says. ?Free ;omo demens@ 5e says that *adnessshould escae )ro* under ;omo sapiens and realise the transgression !et,een these t,ocolu*ns in the olitical shere$ 5ere co*es the rhiHo*atic rocess. onic and chronological

ideas o) te*orality$ This ost*odern de*entia is *uch li"e the Fourth Political Theory.and di))ers )ro* it only in its horiHontality and )latness$ The *ain ro!le* o) ost*odernity is its eli*ination o) any 'ertical orientation in ter*s o) !oth height anddeth$

The end ti*es and the eschatological *eaning o) olitics ,ill not realise the*sel'eson their o,n$ 6e ,ill ,ait )or the end in 'ain$ The end ,ill ne'er co*e i) ,e ,ait )or it.and it ,ill ne'er co*e i) ,e do not$ This is essential !ecause history. ti*e. and reality ha'esecial strategies to a'oid 3udg*ent Day. or rather. they ha'e a secial strategy o) are'ersionary *anoeu're that ,ill create the i*ression that e'eryone has co*e to arealisation and an understanding$ This is the huge arsenal o) 5eidegger@s noch nicht . oreternal ?not yet@ ) the Fourth Political Practice is not a!le to realise the end o) ti*es. thenit ,ould !e in'alid$ The end o) days should co*e !ut it ,ill not co*e !y itsel)$ This is atas". it is not a certainty$ t is acti'e *etahysics$ t is a ractice$ And it can !e a otentialand rational solution o) the enig*atic layers that are disco'ered ,hile tal"ing a!out FourthPolitical Practice$



1; >en!er in the Fourth Political Theory

To !egin ,ith. let us analyse ,hat tenets a!out gender are characteristic o) the olitical theories o) *odernity$ ) ,e attenti'ely exa*ine the ersecti'e )ro* ,hichsocialis*. li!eralis*. nationalis*. )ascis*. and (ational Socialis* all oerate. ,e ,illnotice that so*e )eatures are co**on to the classical understanding o) gender in all the olitical theories o) *odernity$ On the one hand. it is not original to *odernity. !ecause*odernity here )ollo,s traditional Euroean society +e'en reB*odern %hristianity-. ,hich,as *ostly atriarchal$ E'en !e)ore %hristianity. it ,as atriarchal. !ac" until thosei**e*orial ti*es in the #editerranean ,hich ,ere discussed !y acho)en in his !oo". 9other ight $J2>1 n other ,ords. !ehind *odernity. and !ehind *odernity@s concetiono) gender. is 6estern or glo!al atriarchy$ This atriarchy has hea'ily in)luenced thestructure and olitical understanding o) gender in *odernity$ 5o,e'er. this atriarchy hasundergone certain *odi)ications in the )inal )or*ulation o) gender nor*s in the oliticaltheories o) *odernity$ t is acceta!le to consider ?a gender@ in sociological ter*s. in other ,ords. genderas a sociallyBconstructed heno*enon$ This is in contrast to the anato*ical ?sex@ inherent in !iological ter*s$ <ender is a social con'ention ,hich can change )ro* society to society$At the sa*e ti*e. the olitical )or*ulation o) gender is the social nor*. ,hich is aro'edas an i*erati'e on the !asis o) olitical o,er$ Thus. archaic societies ractise rites o) assage or initiations a)ter ,hich a !oy can !e regarded as a ?*an@. other,ise he has nosocial sex. no ?gender@. and is deri'ed o) a *an@s social )unctions +*arriage. articiationin hunting. and ritual-$ Deending on a society@s re9uire*ents. gender tenets can change$For exa*le. in so*e sla'eholding societies. *ale sla'es ,ere not thought o) as *en. and,ere *ade to ,ear ,o*en@s clothing$ Sla'es ,ere used as ,o*en !ecause they did notha'e the social status o) *en$ 5ence the heno*enon o) castration I the deri'ation o) the hysical attri!utes o) *en on a ar ,ith their social status$ There)ore. gender is !oth asocial heno*enon and a olitical one$ Political. !ecause ,e are dealing ,ith the*anage*ent o) social nor*s regulated !y a society co**unity. olice. and so on. theretreat )ro* ,hich leads to a 'ariety o) sanctions$ The three olitical theories o) *odernity all as" the sa*e 9uestions ?6ho is the olitical erson7 And ,hat is the olitical gender7@ At )irst. ?the erson@ is the *an$ Fro*the sociological oint o) 'ie,. ,o*en !eca*e ?ersons@ only recently. and this raises the9uestion o) ,o*en@s olitical rights$ Fro* the 'ie,oint o) *odernity. a ,o*an is not a erson$ A erson can only !e a *an ho,e'er. not e'ery *an. only a secial tye o) *an$The characteristics o) a real *an include ,ealth +until the end o) the (ineteenth century inEuroe. roerty ,as a necessary attri!ute o) citienship. i$e$. olitical gender-. rationality.thri)t. and li'ing in a city +the easant ,as not considered an e9ual in sociooliticalsigni)icance-$ Thus. in the elections o) the )irst state Du*a in Russia in 1C0;.J2>2 the'oice o) one to,ns*an ,as e9ual to 100 easants@ 'oices$ n *odernity. a easant is not



9uite a ?erson@$ Other characteristics o) !eing a ?*an@ include *aturity and age$ ThesesocioBro)essional and age categories are included in the concets o) gender and gender)unctions$ The last characteristic is that a ?*an@ *ust !elong to Euroean ci'ilisation andha'e ,hite s"in$ 6hen considerations o) cultural sueriority and racis* are ta"en together.this is the ?olitical *an@. or l’home politiue. )ro* an anthroological oint o) 'ie,$

Such gender tenets are an axis )or all three *aor olitical ideologies o) *odernityand their deri'ations$ 5o,e'er. ,ithin these ideologies there are di))erences in relation tothis )igure o) the ?*an@$ The *ost ?*aleBa))ir*ing@ is the theory o) li!eralis*. as itconsiders this )igure o) the rational. rich. adult 6hite *ale as the nor* and as a natural heno*enon$ Li!eralis* canonises this concetion o) gender and standardises it. trying toeternalise this !ourgeois social syste*. tyical o) EighteenthB and (ineteenthBcenturyEuroe$ Li!eralis* asserts the )actuality o) this gender and roects it onto the )uture ?The*odern ,orld is constructed !y *en. concei'ed and anticiated !y *en. and ,ill !elong to*en. ;omo oeconomicus and ;omo %a!er @$J2>8 Such an understanding o) gender isundergoing changes ,ith ti*e the area o) gender that is ?*en@ increases the standardarchetye !egins to include the easants. the oor. ,o*en. and then the nonB6hite ?races@$5o, does this *echanis* aly to the case o) ,o*en7 For ,o*en. ?*anly@ characteristicsstart to !e attri!uted to the* a !usiness,o*an is one ,ho *ani)ests *ale 9ualities 6hite)e*ales !eco*e ?citiHens@$ Thus. ?the ,o*an@ starts to !e thought o) as ?the *an@$ So.li!eral )e*inis*. or the asiration to gi'e ,o*en )reedo*. *eans to identi)y a ,o*an as a*an and thus e9ualise the* socioBolitically. that is. reresent a ,o*an as a *an socially$The sa*e rocedure is alied to reresent the rural easant as an ur!an cityBd,eller. thenonB6hite ?races@ as 6hite. the oor as rich. the ?stuid@ as reasoning$ A ,o*an ,ho sits !ehind the ,heel o) a car is a *an or a caricature o) a *an$ 5o,e'er. under li!eralis*. thedi'isions o) the social concetions o) gender re*ain$ 6o*an *ay ac9uire the sa*etechnical rights as *en. and thus. in er)or*ing the )unctions o) ?a *an@. *ay !econsidered as e9ual to *en. !ut the social construction o) ?the *an@ and ?the ,o*an@ isunchanged$ The second olitical theory. #arxis*. starts )ro* the sa*e osition that gender is a !ourgeois olitical construction$ ut this situation is criticised. and the need to change thissituation is exressed$ Fro* here de'elos an idea o) total e9uality. including in ter*s o)gender$ The concet o) gender e9uality in the second olitical theory 9ualitati'ely di))ers)ro* the understanding o) e9uality in the )irst olitical theory$ The )e*inis* or genderegalitarianis* o) #arxis* contends that !oth *en and ,o*en ,ho exist in the context o)#arxist ideology cease to !e *en and ,o*en ,ho constitute the standard and i*erati'egender di'ision o) li!eralis*$ That is. ,e see a desire to *o'e !eyond gender in the !ourgeois interretation$ n )act. ?the *an@ here loses the sole ossession o) rationality$ The5ungarian neoB#arxist hilosoher <eorg Lu"ZcsJ2>: said that ?the dialectical *ethod asthe true historical *ethod ,as reser'ed )or the class ,hich ,as a!le to disco'er ,ithinitsel) on the !asis o) its li)eBexerience the identical su!ectBo!ect. the su!ect o) actionthe ?,e@ o) the genesis na*ely the roletariat@$J2>; Proceeding )ro* such a )or*ulation.classical #arxists consistently call )or insanity. to schiHohrenia. to the schiHoBre'olutionary +DeleuHe-$ They rely on the ur!an oor and the roletarians. ,ho could ne'er !eco*e )ullB)ledged !ourgeois they turn to the nonB6hite ur!an oulations ho,e'er.they ignore those ,ho li'e in rural areas or easants. seeing the* through the ris* o) !ourgeois ercetion$ ut on the ,hole. in the gender olicy o) the %o**unists. ,e see ane, tendency they recognise the status 9uo o) gender and o))er to change it under the



!anner o) historical *aterialis*$ This *eans the transgression o) !ourgeois *an in thedo,n,ard direction. and the aeal to the *aterial su!stance +literally ?,hat stands !elo,@ I the su!Bstate-. to the undi))erentiated real* o) ,or". ,here there is no 9ualitati'edi))erence !et,een the ?good coo"ing ,o*[email protected]>= the sailor. or the *asculine hero$#arxists 'enture e'en lo,er do,n. ,here nothing is le)t o) gender hierarchies and

strategies$ Thus. the *ost extre*e #arxist ideas ha'e a desire to destroy the !ourgeoisarchetye$ The reality o) ractise. ho,e'er. ,as di))erent )ro* the theory in Stalin@sRussia. the *ale archetye. the ?rational. do*ineering *an@ re'ailed. desite atte*ts torecreate #arxist gender e9uality i**ediately co**ensurate ,ith the re'olution o) 1C1>$ut the idea o) o'erco*ing the social construction o) ?the *an@ through the re)erence toanato*y. to the ?desiringB*[email protected]>> is characteristic o) #arxis*$

Fascis*. the third olitical theory. accets the *odel o) the ur!an. 6hite. Euroean.rational. ,ealthy ?*an@. and exalts in it$ ) li!eralis* accets this *odel as the nor*. then)ascis* !egins to gi)t ?the *an@ ,ith additional roerties$ n (ational Socialis*. he should !e not si*ly !e 6hite. !ut (ordic 6hite not ust rational. !ut in ossession o) the uni9ue)or* o) reason that only the <er*anic Aryan race ossesses$ This is si*ilar to the ositiono) LN'yBrWhl. ,ho ostulated that only the Euroeans ha'e a logos. and that other eolesare guided !y reBlogical. nonBci'ilised social structures$ #asculinity ,as )urther exalted.and ,o*en ,ere urged to !e engaged only in kinder" kirchen" und kGchen +children. church.and "itchen-$ Other tenets o) gender ,ere o))ered eriherally )or exa*le. !y 3ulius E'olain his The 9etaphysics o% 'e:.J2> in ,hich the sueriority o) the *asculine o'er the)e*inine is asserted. it is argued that *en are dor*ant otential gods. and ,o*en aredor*ant otential goddesses. !ut standing a little lo,er in the hierarchy o) the sexes$ 6hileconsidering the third olitical theory. the )ringe concetion o) ?(ordic *atriarchy@ shouldalso !e *entioned there ,as an ontology o) the )e*inine$ 5er*an 6irth.J2>C a discile o) acho)en. argued that the Sure*e eing is a ,o*an. !ut that ,o*en are co*letelydi))erent )ro* *en. a ,o*an in her ontology. $eisse Frau$ 5o,e'er. in the third oliticaltheory. the i*age created !y li!eralis* and then exaggerated re*ained the nor*$ The Fourth Political Theory reresents an asiration to o'erco*e the genderconstruction o) the three olitical theories o) *odernity$ n this case. ,hat is its genderstrategy. its i*erati'e7 First o) all. the Fourth Political Theory uts outside the !rac"ets?the *an@. in other ,ords. that ?*an@ as a gender ,ith social constructions that arecharacteristic o) *odernity$ The Fourth Political Theory does not address such a ?last *[email protected] he reresents the closed archetye o) #odernity$ Outside o) the shere o) gender. theFourth Political Theory groes ,ith the contours o) its ?*an@$ n the )ace o) thisconstruction o) ?*an@ as he ,ho ossesses reason. ,ealth. resonsi!ility. city. ,hite s"incolor. and so on. ,e re'olt$ This i*age o) *an *ust die he doesn@t ha'e a chance tosur'i'e. as he is closed inside *odernity@s historical deadloc"$ 5e reroduces the s*allhierarchies and cannot go !eyond his o,n !orders$ Such a *an !elie'es hi*sel) to !ei**ortal$ n sel)Bre)lection he creates er*anent realities. *irrors loo"ing in *irrors$ Thesa*e goes )or all those i*ages to ,hich the *an o) *odernity has !een extended the !usiness,o*an. nonB6hites in ?resecta!le@ roles. and so on$ The ositi'e attri!ute o) *an. !eyond the aradig* o) *odernity. is the nonBadult$The su!ect o) the Fourth Political Theory is a nonBadult *ale$ For exa*le. e +rand Heu o) <il!ertBLeco*te and RenN Dau*al.J20 ,ho o))ered to li'e their li'es ,ithout*aturing to re*ain laying at !eing children$ This can !e considered as an in'itation tode'elo gender tenets )or the Fourth Political Theory. a syste* o) aesthetic and olitical



hilosohy$ /nder the concet o) the nonB6hite ?*an@ lies the reBlogical ,orld syste* o)LN'yBrWhl. ,here the logos is not the only *eans o) social organisation$ 5ere ,e dra,)ro* LN'iBStrauss a theory o) social anthroology and ethnoBsociology dra,n )ro* theanalysis o) the exerience o) *any nonB6hite societies$ Further. )ro* *adness all )or*so) intellectual transgression. the ractise o) 'oluntary insanity )ro* Friedrich 5lderlin and

(ietHsche to ataille and Artaud$ #adness is art o) the gender arsenal o) the FourthPolitical Theory$ n general nonB6hiteVEuroean. insane. nonBur!an or de)ined !y aconstructed landscae$ For exa*le. the ecologist or a!original that is. the erson ,ho didnot !rea" ,ith nature. as discussed !y Red)ield in his The Folk 'ociety$J21 Thus. ,ecreate a search algorith* ,o'en o) all those ele*ents that are ignored or reected !y*odernity$ These ele*ents *a"e u a huge )ield o) existence and *etahysics. a )ield o)the intensi'e !eing o) the Fourth Political Theory$ Sule*enting the Fourth PoliticalTheory. ,e should re)use all those tenets a!out gender ,hich li!eralis* carries ,ithinitsel)$ Fro* the second olitical theory@s gender concetion. it ,ould !e er*issi!le to !orro, the idea o) ?the desiringB*achine@. the idea o) o'erco*ing ?the *an@ through glo!alegalitarianis* ,ithin the li*its o) the *aterial$ Fro* the classical )ascist gender *odel o)the third olitical theory. as ,ell as li!eralis*. there is nothing to learn. ,hile theconcetions de'eloed on their )ringes *ay !e o) great interest. na*ely sex ontologisation+)ro* E'ola- and the idea o) (ordic *atriarchy$

6hat is the su!ect o) the Fourth Political Theory7 The su!ect o) the FourthPolitical Theory is (asein or E$ischen. the ?!et,een@ in the sace !et,een the su!ect andthe o!ect ,hich it is ossi!le to identi)y ,ith the anthroological traectory o) <il!ertDurand$ 6ithin (asein. traectory.J22 l’imaginaire.J28 is there a social concetion o)sex7 And ,hat is the gender o) (asein7 t is necessary to )or*ulate the nor*ati'e andi*erati'e gender o) the Fourth Political Theory$ <ender in the Fourth Political Theory isthe sa*e as sex in (asein. that is. ,e ha'e exlained one un"no,n through another$ (aseincan so*eho, !e sexualiHed. !ut that sex ,hich it has cannot !e either *ale or )e*ale$ t*ay *a"e sense to sea" a!out it in ter*s o) the androgyne$ Should ,e say that the FourthPolitical Theory *ay !e addressed to the androgynous !eing. and its gender is theandrogyne7 Perhas. !ut only i) it is ossi!le not to roect onto the androgynous theo!'iously slit *odels o) sex as hal'es o) a ,hole$ Sex. according to Plato. is a unity thathas !een di'ided$ So traectory is that ,hich. according to Durand. is !et,een the su!ectand the o!ect. and is de)ined in relation to the*. as in (asein ,hich. according to5eidegger. is in E$ischen. on the !order !et,een the internal and external. constitutingitsel) on the existential !order !et,een the di'ision o) unity$ And the concet o)l’imaginaire contains di'ision ,ithin itsel) +in <ree". ^_`b_- as one o) its ossi!leregi*es$ So. i) ,e understand the androgyne in this ,ay. not as so*ething that isco*osite. !ut as so*ething rooted or radical. then ,e can tal" a!out a radical notion.,hich is not sex in the sense that it is hal) o) so*ething else$ That is. the gender o) theFourth Political Theory is that hal). that sex ,hich is si*ultaneously the ,hole and does notneed its antithesis. and is there)ore sel)Bsu))icient ,ithin itsel)$ 6e can theorise a!out thisgender that it does not so *uch co*e a!out )ro* an analysis o) sexual or genderarchetyes. !ut !ecause o) thin"ing hilosohically and olitically uon the su!ect o) theFourth Political Theory$ Thus. ,e change the )or*ulation o) the 9uestion$ 6e do not as",hich sex is (asein. ,e ans,er that the gender o) the su!ect o) the Fourth Political Theoryis the sa*e as that o) (asein$ n this case. ,e can also tal" a!out the radical +?root@ )ro*the Latin. radicula- androgyne. ,hich exists not as a result o) a co*!ination o) the *an and



the ,o*an. !ut that reresents instead the ri*ordial. untouched unity$5o, does gender change under the conditions o) ost*odernity7 The ost*odern

reresents a co*!ination o) all three olitical theories$ On the one hand. this is anacco*lished *odernity ,hich has reached its logical end as hypermodern +or?ultra*odern@-$ Thus. all three olitical theories roect onto ost*odernity their o,n

gender archetyes. ,hich reresented the li*its o) their o,n structures$ These li*its areexressed through an institutionalisation o) gender in ost*odernity$ 6hat is the ost*odern gender7 t is a *axi*isation o) ?the li!eral *an@. the archetye o) ,hichalies to all o) its antitheses the stuid. the oor. the nonB6hite. the little. and so )orth$ tis also the gender o) glo!alisation. ,hen the roerties o) a certain tye are extended associal standards onto all other tyes as uni'ersalis*$ 5ence the idea that the roletariansare only the !ourgeoisie ,ho ha'e not gro,n rich yet. lac"s are un*odernised ,hites. and,o*en are not yet )ully li!erated *en$ That is. ,e see that this allBconsu*ing archetye !eco*es *eaningless$ The reBextension o) existing gender *odels can lead to the exlosiono) the hyer*odern li"e a rotting )ungus. and its gender archetyes ,ill )ail$ (o, ,e are inthis *o*ent o) a ost*odern reBextension. and the )inal !rea"ing o) gender$ The stages o)this !rea" are )e*inis*. ho*osexuality. sexBchange oerations. and transhu*anity$ n the 6est. the second olitical theory had a great in)luence on the elites. articularly the creati'e ro)essions +actors. ,riters. hilosohers. etc$-$ This is ?thedesiringB*achine@. incororating Le)tist )e*inis* ,ith its ideas o) )reedo* )ro* sex$Donna 5ara,ayJ2: is such a )e*inist. or rather loosely a neoB#arxist and a ost*odernist$ She argued that ,hile the *ature ,o*an *ay )eel an urge to !e [email protected]!eration in our culture in'ol'es de)inition o) the oosite$ There)ore it is necessary too'erco*e !oth the *an and the ,o*an through !eco*ing a cy!org$ According to her. sexcan !e o'erco*e only !y ha'ing o'erco*e !eing hu*an$ n a si*ilar 'ein isFoucault@sJ2; concetion o) sexuality. that is. sexuality rior to sex. as a neutraldisositi'e sexuality. sreading along the sur)ace o) the screen. the ?!ody ,ithout organs@$This anBsexuality. ,hich is a s*ooth sur)ace o) sexual arousals. re*ains unclear in ter*so) )ro* ,ho* it is deri'ed. )or ,hat reason. and *ost i*ortantly. no *atter in ,hatorientation or direction$ As a ,hole. in ter*s o) the erosion and destruction o) the genderconstructions o) *odernity. #arxist thought introduces the *ost signi)icant contri!ution$Ele*ents o) )ascis* in ost*odernity are reresented !y the ractise o) DS#$J2=%onte*orary )ascis* contains strong ele*ents o) sado*asochis*. and er'erted )ascis*is an essential attri!ute o) ost*odernis*. along ,ith )e*inis*. cy!orgs. a ?!ody ,ithoutorgans@. and so on$

E'entually ,e )ind oursel'es in an interesting situation the redo*inant gender o)*odernity is exosed as a reBextension o) its original concetion. is )ast eroding and. inso*e instances. is a!out to exlode. or erhas has already exloded$ 6e stand on atransition !et,een the hyer*odern and the ost*odern. and ,e do not "no, ,here thetruth and ,here the reality lies$ So. in a ost*odern construction o) gender. there ,ill not !e any *en$ Let us i*agine this situation the archetye o) ?the *an@ )alls into ieces.,hich do not constitute arts o) the ,hole any*ore. !ut sy*!olise only the*sel'es$%onser'ati'e )orces can stand u )or this archetye. de*and the return o) *asculinity Ithis reasona!le. ,ealthy ,hite erson I !ut there!y. they only try to continue *odernitythrough gender reconstructions$ This osition see*s hoeless. and here again the FourthPolitical Theory. in our oinion. goes )or,ard$ 6e suggest ta"ing a ste to,ards gender as (asein. desite the notorious reresentations and oro!riu* that ,e ,ill cause$ y going



!eyond the li*its o) gender ,hich ,e "no,. ,e get to the do*ain o) uncertainty.androgyny. and sex as ractised !y the angels$ n the sa*e shere. it is necessary to search)or a gender o) the Fourth Political Theory. na*ely !y ta"ing ris"s in loo"ing !ehind theli*its o) the collased chi*era o) *odernity$ 6e can as yet ro'ide only outlines ,e "no,that it is the gender o) (asein and traectory. that this gender reresents a root reality. that it

!elongs to l’imaginaire. y extending our in'estigation. ,e can raise the 9uestion a!out thegender o) the Radical Sel). ,hich is !eyond the !asic aradig*s$



1= A)ainst the Postmo!ern %orl!

The 2il of ni.olarity

The current ,orld is uniolar. ,ith the glo!al 6est as its centre and ,ith the /nitedStates as its core$

This "ind o) uniolarity has geoolitical and ideological characteristics$<eoolitically. it is the strategic do*inance o) the Earth !y the (orth A*ericanhyero,er and the e))ort o) 6ashington to organise the !alance o) )orces on the lanet insuch a *anner as to !e a!le to rule the ,hole ,orld in accordance ,ith its o,n national.i*erialistic interests$ t is !ad !ecause it deri'es other states and nations o) their realso'ereignty$ 6hen there is only one o,er ,hich decides ,ho is right and ,ho is ,rong. and,ho should !e unished and ,ho not. ,e ha'e a )or* o) glo!al dictatorshi$ This is notacceta!le$ There)ore. ,e should )ight against it$ ) so*eone deri'es us o) our )reedo*.,e ha'e to react$ And ,e ,ill react$ The A*erican E*ire should !e destroyed$ And at one oint. it ,ill !e$ deologically. uniolarity is !ased on *odernist and ost*odernist 'alues that areoenly antiBtraditional ones$ share the 'ision o) RenN <uNnon and 3ulius E'ola. ,hoconsidered *odernity and its ideological !asis +indi'idualis*. li!eral de*ocracy.caitalis*. consu*eris*. and so on- to !e the cause o) the )uture catastrohe o) hu*anity.and the glo!al do*ination o) the 6estern li)estyle as the reason )or the )inal degradation o)the Earth$ The 6est is aroaching its ter*inus. and ,e should not let it drag all the rest o)us do,n into the a!yss ,ith it$ Siritually. glo!alisation is the creation o) a grand arody. the "ingdo* o) theAntichrist$ And the /nited States is the centre o) its exansion$ A*erican 'alues retend to !e ?uni'ersal@ ones$ n reality. it is a ne, )or* o) ideological aggression against the*ultilicity o) cultures and traditions still existing in the rest o) the ,orld$ a* resolutelyagainst 6estern 'alues ,hich are essentially *odernist and ost*odernist. and ,hich are ro*ulgated !y the /nited States !y )orce o) ar*s or !y o!trusion +A)ghanistan. ra9.Li!ya. and erhas soon. Syria and ran- $ There)ore. all traditionalists should !e against the 6est and glo!alisation. as ,ell asagainst the i*erialist olitics o) the /nited States$ t is the only logical and conse9uent osition$ So traditionalists and artisans o) traditional rinciles and 'alues should oosethe 6est and de)end the Rest. i) the Rest sho, signs o) the conser'ation o) Tradition.,hether in art or in its entirety$ There can !e and there really exist eole. in the 6est and e'en in the /nited Stateso) A*erica itsel). ,ho do not agree ,ith the resent state o) a))airs and do not aro'e o)*odernity and ost*odernity$ They are the de)enders o) the siritual traditions o) the reB



*odern 6est$ They should !e ,ith us in our co**on struggle$ They should ta"e art in our re'olt against the *odern and ost*odern ,orlds$ 6e ,ould )ight together against theco**on ene*y$

Another 9uestion is the structure o) a ossi!le antiBglo!alist and antiBi*erialist)ront and its articiants$ thin" that ,e should include in it all )orces that struggle against

the 6est. the /nited States. against li!eral de*ocracy. and against *odernity and ost*odernity$ The co**on ene*y is the necessary instance )or all "inds o) oliticalalliances$ This *eans #usli*s and %hristians. Russians and %hinese. !oth Le)tists andRightists. the 5indus and the 3e,s ,ho challenge the resent state o) a))airs. glo!alisationand A*erican i*erialis*$ They are thus all 'irtually )riends and allies$ Let our ideals !edi))erent. !ut ,e ha'e in co**on one 'ery strong )eature hatred o) the resent socialreality$ Our ideals that di))er are otential ones +in potentia-$ ut the challenge ,e aredealing ,ith is actual +in actu-$ That is the !asis )or a ne, alliance$ All ,ho share anegati'e analysis o) glo!alisation. 6esternisation and ost*odernisation should coordinatetheir e))ort in the creation o) a ne, strategy o) resistance to the o*niresent e'il$ And ,ecan )ind co**on allies e'en ,ithin the /nited States as ,ell. a*ong those ,ho choose the ath o) Tradition o'er the resent decadence$

To"ar!s the Fourth Political Theory

At this oint. ,e should raise a 'ery i*ortant 9uestion ,hat "ind o)ideology should ,e use in our oosition to glo!alisation and its li!eral de*ocratic.caitalist. and *odernist +ost*odernist- rinciles7 !elie'e that all re'ious antiBli!eralideologies +%o**unis*. socialis*. and )ascis*- are no longer rele'ant$ They tried to )ightli!eral caitalis* and they )ailed$ This is artly !ecause. at the end o) ti*e. it is e'il that re'ails and artly !ecause o) their inner contradictions and li*itations$ So it is ti*e to !egin a dee re'ision o) the illi!eral ideologies o) the ast$ 6hat are their ositi'e sides7Their ositi'e side is the 'ery )act that they ,ere antiBcaitalist and antiBli!eral. as ,ell asantiBcos*oolitan and antiBindi'idualist$ These )eatures should !e acceted and integratedinto a )uture ideology$ ut %o**unist doctrine itsel) is *odern. atheist. *aterialist andcos*oolitan$ That should !e thro,n out$ On the other hand. %o**unis*@s socialsolidarity. social ustice. socialis* and general holistic attitude to society are good. in ando) the*sel'es$ So ,e need to searate out the *aterialist and *odernist asects o)%o**unis* and reect the*. ,hile reser'ing and e*!racing its social and holisticasects$ As )or the theories o) the Third 6ay I ,hich ,ere dear. u to a certain oint. toso*e traditionalists such as 3ulius E'ola I there ,ere *any unacceta!le ele*ents.)ore*ost a*ong these !eing racis*. xenoho!ia and chau'inis*$ These are not only *oral)ailures. !ut also theoretically and anthroologically inconsistent attitudes$ Di))erences !et,een ethnicities do not e9uate to sueriority or in)eriority$ The di))erences should !eacceted and a))ir*ed ,ithout any racist senti*ents or consideration$ There is no co**onor uni'ersal *easure to udge di))erent ethnic grous$ 6hen one society tries to udgeanother. it alies its o,n criteria. and so co**its intellectual 'iolence$ This ethnocentricattitude is recisely the cri*e o) glo!alisation and 6esternisation. as ,ell as o) A*ericani*erialis*$



) ,e )ree socialis* )ro* its *aterialist. atheistic and *odernist )eatures. and i) ,ereect the racist and narro, nationalist asects o) the Third 6ay doctrines. ,e arri'e at aco*letely ne, "ind o) olitical ideology$ 6e call it the Fourth Political Theory. or:PT. the )irst !eing li!eralis*. that ,e essentially challenge the second !eing the classical)or* o) %o**unis* and the third !eing (ational Socialis* and )ascis*$ ts ela!oration

starts )ro* the oint o) intersection !et,een di))erent antiBli!eral olitical theories o) the ast +na*ely %o**unis* and the Third 6ay theories-$ So ,e arri'e at (ationalolshe'is*. ,hich reresents socialis* ,ithout *aterialis*. atheis*. rogressi'is*. and*odernis*. as ,ell as the *odi)ied Third 6ay theories$

ut that is only the )irst ste$ The *echanical addition o) deely re'ised 'ersions o)the antiBli!eral ideologies o) the ast ,ill not gi'e us a )inal result$ t is only a )irstaroxi*ation and reli*inary aroach$ 6e *ust go )urther and *a"e an aeal toTradition and to reB*odern sources o) insiration$ There ,e ha'e the Platonic ideal state.#edie'al hierarchical society. and theological 'isions o) the nor*ati'e social and oliticalsyste* +%hristian. sla*ic. uddhist. 3e,ish or 5indu-$ These reB*odern sources are a'ery i*ortant de'elo*ent )or the (ational olshe'is* synthesis$ There)ore. ,e need to)ind a ne, na*e )or this "ind o) ideology. and Fourth Political Theory is 9uite aroriate$t does not tell us ,hat this theory is. !ut rather ,hat it is not$ So it is a "ind o) in'itationand aeal. rather than dog*a$ Politically. ,e ha'e here an interesting !asis )or the conscious cooeration o) theradical Le)tB,ingers and the (e, Right. as ,ell as ,ith religious and other antiB*odern*o'e*ents. such as the ecologists and <reen theorists. )or exa*le$ The only thing that ,einsist on in creating such a act o) cooeration is to ut aside antiB%o**unist. as ,ell asantiB)ascist. reudices$ These reudices are the instru*ents in the hands o) li!erals andglo!alists ,ith ,hich they "ee their ene*ies di'ided$ So ,e should strongly reect antiB%o**unis* as ,ell as antiB)ascis*$ oth o) the* are counterBre'olutionary tools in thehands o) the glo!al li!eral elite$ At the sa*e ti*e. ,e should strongly oose any "ind o)con)rontation !et,een the 'arious religious !elie)s I #usli*s against %hristians. the 3e,sagainst #usli*s. the #usli*s against the 5indus and so on$ The interBcon)essional ,arsand tensions ,or" )or the cause o) the "ingdo* o) the Antichrist ,ho tries to di'ide all thetraditional religions in order to i*ose its o,n seudoBreligion. the eschatological arody$ So ,e need to unite the Right. the Le)t and the ,orld@s traditional religions in aco**on struggle against the co**on ene*y$ Social ustice. national so'ereignty andtraditional 'alues are the three *ain rinciles o) the Fourth Political Theory$ t is not easyto ut together such a 'aried alliance$ ut ,e *ust try i) ,e ,ant to o'erco*e the )oe$ n France. there is a saying coined !y Alain Soral la droite des valeurs et la gauche

du travail $ n italian it goes a (estra sociale e la 'inistra identitaria$ 5o, exactly itshould sound in English ,e ,ill see later$ 6e could go )urther and try to de)ine the su!ect. the actor o) the Fourth PoliticalTheory$ n the case o) %o**unis*. the central su!ect ,as class$ n the case o) the Third6ay *o'e*ents. the central su!ect ,as either the race or the nation$ n the case o)religions. it is the co**unity o) the )aith)ul$ 5o, could the Fourth Political Theory deal,ith this di'ersity and the di'ergence o) su!ects7 6e roose. as a suggestion. that the*ain su!ect o) the Fourth Political Theory can !e )ound in the 5eideggerian concet o) (asein$ t is a concrete. !ut extre*ely ro)ound instance that could !e the co**ondeno*inator )or the )urther ontological de'elo*ent o) the Fourth Political Theory$ 6hat iscrucial )or consideration is the authenticity or nonBauthenticity o) the existence o) (asein$



The Fourth Political Theory insists on the authenticity o) existence$ So it is the antithesis toany "ind o) alienation I social. econo*ic. national. religious or *etahysical$

ut (asein is a concrete instance$ E'ery indi'idual and e'ery culture ossessestheir o,n (asein$ They di))er !et,een each other. !ut they are al,ays resent$

Acceting (asein as the su!ect o) the Fourth Political Theory. ,e should rogress

to,ard the ela!oration o) a co**on strategy in the rocess o) the creation o) a )uture that)its to our de*ands and our 'isions$ Such 'alues as social ustice. national so'ereignty andtraditional sirituality can ser'e us as the )oundation$ sincerely !elie'e that the Fourth Political Theory. and its secondary 'ariations. (ational olshe'is* and Eurasianis*. can !e o) great use )or our eoles. our countries.and our ci'ilisations$ The "ey *anager o) di))erences is *ultiolarity in all senses Igeoolitical. cultural. axiological. econo*ic. and so on$ The i*ortant concet o) nous +intellect- de'eloed !y the <ree" hilosoherPlotinusJ2> corresonds to our ideal$ The intellect is one and *ultile at the sa*e ti*e. !ecause it has *ultile di))erences in itsel) I it is not uni)or* or an a*alga*. !ut ta"en assuch ,ith *any arts. and ,ith all their distinct articularities$ The )uture ,orld should !e noetic in so*e ,ay I characterised !y *ultilicity di'ersity should !e ta"en as itsrichness and its treasure. and not as a reason )or ine'ita!le con)lict *any ci'ilisations.*any oles. *any centres. *any sets o) 'alues on one lanet and in one hu*anity$ #any,orlds$ ut there are so*e ,ho thin" other,ise$ 6ho are aligned against such a roect7Those ,ho ,ant to i*ose uni)or*ity. the one +A*erican- ,ay o) li)e. One 6orld$ Andtheir *ethods are )orce. te*tation. and ersuasion$ They are against *ultiolarity$ So theyare against us$



A..en!i' *

* Political Post-Anthro.olo)y

1$ Each tye o) olitical syste* and each stage o) olitical history oerates inaccordance ,ith the nor*ati'e. olitical tye o) the hu*an$ 6e say ?a *an o) the #iddleAges@. ?a *an o) *odernity@. and so on. descri!ing the seci)ic historical and oliticalconstructs$ These constructs are directly deendent on the organisation and )or*alisation o) po$er relations in a society and relate to the axis o) o,er. ,hich is the essence o) the olitical. and ,ith the designation o) one@s )riend and ene*y +%$ Sch*itt-. ,hich is also theessence o) the olitical$ The olitical is o,er and olitical identi)ication +the Sel)VtheOther-$ Each olitical )or* ro'ides a di))erent *odel o) o,er and such identi)ication$5o,e'er. *any olitical syste*s exist. and each has its o,n olitical anthroology$Political theology +%$ Sch*itt-J2 suggests that the olicy and olitical syste* re)lects.and in certain cases constitutes. a standard o) olitical anthroology$ 2$ The olitical hu*an is trans)or*ed )ro* one )or* o) the olitical to another$This is su))iciently traced in the ?hilosohy o) olitics@ and ?ostBhilosohy@$ (o, ,e,ill )ocus on ,hich )or* o) olitical anthroology *eets ost*odernity$ 8$ Post*odernity is so*ething that sets in and steps on I stes on us$ ut it hasnot steed yet$ There)ore. the study o) ost*odernity su))ers )ro* an a!surd creati'e ga$Although it can ste on us. it *ay also not ste on us. and ,e can +or cannot. it is not yetclear- ,riggle out )ro* under it$ So. tal"ing a!out ost*odernity is interesting. exciting andat the sa*e ti*e ris"y$ t is a rocess ,ith an un"no,n end and uncertain *eaning$ t is still ossi!le to in)luence this end and this *eaning$ 5istory. aarently. has ended. and ostBhistory is only !eginning. and one has to search in it )or a sace o) struggle. to ,in !ac"this sace and exand it$ :$ Political ostBanthroology is a!out )orecasting and constructing the oliticalhu*an in ost*odernity$ t is nor*ati'e$ 6e do not ust study ,hat exists ,e )ollo, the rocess and try to a))ect it$ 6ish)ul thin"ing and sel)B)ul)illing rohecy is 9uite legiti*ateand ,elco*e here$ y exloring olitical ostBanthroology. ,e !ring the olitical !ac" toli)e$

** Political Post-humanity an! the Post-#tate

1$ The a!solute )eatures o) the ostBhu*anity o) ost*odernity are



B deoliticisation B autono*isation B *icroscoisation B su!B and transhu*anisation +as a secial )or* o) dehu*anisation-

B (ividualisation +)rag*entation-$ That is. the reection and denial o) so*ething that ,as olitical in the re'ious hases o) history !eco*es the do*inant )or* o) olitics$ Politicisation *eets ,ithdeoliticisation$ The olitics o) the ostBhu*an o) ost*odernity lies in the atte*t toescae )ro* it. and in the roection o) the olitical into the ne, shere$ The ostBhu*an o) ost*odernity declares ,ar on the olitical )irst. !ased on the econo*y +homo

oeconomicus 's$ homo politicus-. then against the classical su!ectBo!ect econo*y in thena*e o) the net,or" dyna*ics o) the )ree. creati'e ga*e o) disengaged ?sets@ +(egri and5ardt-$ The industry o) )ashion. cele!rity. gla*our and sho, !usiness inculcates the ideathat. to attain *aterial roserity. one does not need to earn *oney through ,or" one *ustinstead enter and !e recognised !y the rele'ant social set and !eco*e a *e*!er o) the e'erBchanging gla*our net,or"$ <lossy ages. on ,hich a !ody ,ithout organs is sliding rightand le)t. are li"e a concrete e*!odi*ent o) DeleuHe@s l’espace lisse[2&#] I an i*age o) ostBecono*ics$ Actual ,or" is not necessary. it is otional$ 2$ The ostBolitical ostBhu*an o'erthro,s o,er and the collecti'e. and then hisor her o,n di'idualised identity$ 5e does not recognise the o,er relations o'er or underhi*. does not "no, Sel) and Other. and does not accet or understand anything that lies !eyond the scoe o) his *icrocos*$ 5is olicy is exressed in the )or* o) desires and'egetati'e i*ulses o) un"no,n o,nershi and ai*s$ #ay!e it is ?desire@. !ut this ?desire@is no one@s and is not seci)ically addressed any,here$ 8$ t is )ro* a rando* ga*e o) su!Bindi'iduality and transBindi'iduality that the ostBhu*an creates a *odel o) the ostBstate$ The ostBstate is an ironic arody o) the State$t is the State 'iceB'ersa. the StateBasBhanto*. the StateBasB*oc"ery$ n the ostBstate.institutions are *o!ile and ehe*eral$ Policies and legal rinciles are continuously andraidly changing$ t has neither 'ertical. nor horiHontal sy**etry. ai*ing instead to *erge,ith the net,or"$ t is sort o) a irate reu!lic laced in cy!ersace. or a raHilian carni'al.,hich relaces the routine ,ith a routine o) sectacle$ n the ostBstate. the serious and)ri'olous s,a. and it is a "ind o) SaturnaliaJ2C0 rendered er*anent$ n ostBolitics. ostBhu*anity constitutes this ostBstate through !eing a*used !y its o,n deadly.hallucinatory ga*e$ :$ n olitical ostBanthroology. all is re'ersed leisure and ,or" +the *ost seriousoccuation. actual $ork . is ,atching tele'ision sho,s-. "no,ledge and ignorance+co*lete idiots are gi'en o!s as acade*ics-. u!lic and ri'ate $The tiniest. *ost inanedetails o) one@s li)e are the centre o) attention in this reality sho,. e'en in olitical de!ate$Traditional *ale and )e*ale roles are re'ersed$ Rather than !eing estee*ed andexerienced elders. oliticians are chosen )or their youth. gla*our. aearance andinexerience$ Gicti*s !eco*e the cri*inals and 'ice 'ersa ;$ 6hy are ,e tal"ing a!out ostBolitics ,hen it is o!'iously a!out so*ethingdirectly oosite to the olitical7 ecause such an anthroological tye o) ost*odernity.in theory and social ractice. steps on. i$e$ it attac"s. ersistently i*oses itsel). introducesitsel). and gradually !eco*es the nor*$ t acts as a !asic ersonality +A$ Kardiner-$J2C1And )or such an attac" and such an ad'ance. dispositi% [2#2] o) o,er and collecti'e



identi)ication. the olitical. again. is re9uired$ ut. in this case. *odels o) counterBo,ertend to a))ir* their o,n o,er. and those *odels that deny all )or*s o) a type as such insiston uni'ersalisation o) their tye +tye. in this case. is a synony* )or eidos or uni'ersality-$Aolitical singulars and di'ides co*ose a sort o) a ruling arty o) ost*odernity$ Then)luential and those close to the* seiHe o,er or are already in o,er$

=$ This ?arty@ has a stylistic and strategic arsenal$ This is )ashion and interacti'ein)or*ation technologies +T,itter. *o!ile hones. social net,or"s. !logs-$ n French.?)ashiona!le@ is o)ten re)erred to !y a slang ,ord. !ranche. literally ?connected@$ Fashionand technology are changing raidly. and the one ,ho is ?connected@ is the one ,ho ischanging along ,ith it. here and no,. raidly and dyna*ically$ There is no yesterday andto*orro,. not e'en today$ There is only no$$ (o, it is <oogle and T,itter. !ut in a*o*ent they ,ill !e rehistoric e'ents. such as tye,riters or Atari$ 5erein is adromocratic[2#)] asect +Paul Girilio-$J2C:

>$ T,itter re'olutions in the Ara! ,orld or iPad residents. such as D*itri#ed'ede'. are clear signs o) olitical ostBanthroology and the heno*enon o) the ostBstate$ The re'olt o) the elites and the oscillation o) the intensity le'el o) consciousness o)the ruling grous are near Hero$ A classic exa*le is a drug addict as olitical strategist$

*** The Political #ol!ier an! is #imulacrum

1$ Li"e any olitical *odel. the olitical ostBanthroology can !e acceted and*ay !e reected$ t does not *atter ho, *uch it ,ould insist on its o,n ?naturalness@$ A erson can choose !oth the structure o) o,er and his identity$ The ostBstate. T,itterre'olutions. and iPad Presidents are all art o) a single trend. steing on and intruding$They *ay !e *ainstrea*. !ut are not uni9ue$ There *ay also !e alternati'es$ 2$ The )irst alternati'e is the olitical anthroology o) re'ious )or*s$ n the )aceo) olitical ostBanthroology. it can !e generalised !y the )igure o) a ?olitical soldier@$This is an anthroological concet$ t gi'es no idea o) ,hat olitical ideology the ?oliticalsoldier@ )ollo,s$ ut this concet i*licitly contains a !elie) in the existence o) oliticalontology the olitical soldier )ights )or a *odel o) o,er relationshis. and directly andoenly identi)ies hi*sel) ,ith a articular grou +?ours@-$ A )unda*ental distinction o) the olitical soldier is that he is ready and a!le to die )or his olitical idea$ This di))erentiateshi* )ro* an ordinary soldier and an ordinary olitician$ A soldier dies. !ut not )or a olitical idea$ A olitician )ights )or a olitical idea. !ut is not ready to die )or it$ 8$ The olitical soldier *ay !e a %o**unist. a nationalist. or e'en a li!eral$ ut inany case. he ersonalises *odernity. *odernity in its seci)ic olitical )or*s$ The oliticalsoldier is a mediastinum[2#<] o) the olitical anthroology o) *odernity$ And as such. intheory. it can )ight olitical ostBanthroology$ This ,ill !e a conser'ati'e ans,er$ Anindi'idual )ights an indi'idual$ A resent ?ending@ reects the ate*oral. ostBhistorical?)uture@$ The dra*a o) the ?last@ hu*ans clashing ,ith ostBhu*ans in a olitical con)lict isat once 'ery heroic. tragic. oetic andhoeless$ :$ ut olitical ostBanthroology *a"es such a osition al*ost i*ossi!le$ The olitical soldier in the uni9ue conditions o) the corrosi'e ,aters o) ost*odernity isi**ediately con'erted into a si*ulacru*$ This is the *ain delicacy o) ost*odernity it



carries an ironic *utation in regard to all asects o) *odernity. in regard to anthroology I in the )irst lace$ Today it is already no longer ossi!le to *eet ,ith the olitical soldier,e can only *eet ,ith his dou!le. his si*ulacru*. his )a"e$ ;$ n an anthroological series o) olitical and anthroological )or*s. ost*odernity installs a 'icious lin"$ All the threads that connect the olitical arena o)

ost*odernity ,ith *odernity and deeer into olitical history are !ro"en at the *o*ent o) ost*odernity. and there is )ound a "not$ A)ter that "not. ,ith all the 'isi!le continuity. a)a"e seg*ent is situated$ =$ Today there are no olitical soldiers$ All that re*ains is their shells$

*@ Alternati2e in Political Post-anthro.olo)y$ Pre-human an! PC

1$ #y thesis is reduced to the )ollo,ing a))ir*ation in the context o) olitical ostBanthroology. ost*odernity and the ostBhu*an +di'idual- cannot !e oosed to*odernity and hu*an +indi'idual-$ Oosing dualities ,ill not !e li"e the di'idual 's$indi'idual and ostBhu*an 's$ hu*an. !ut li"e di'idual 's$ seudoBindi'idual and ostBhu*an 's$ seudoBhu*an$ The anthroological )old +DeleuHe- o) ost*odern anthroologyis this a si*ulacru* *eets ,ith a si*ulacru*$ 2$ n ost*odernity. a olitical soldier is i*ossi!le$ t can only !e a si*ulacru*$ 8$ %onse9uently. the oosition *ust !e di))erent$ t is not a re'iousanthroological lin" that is designed to collide ,ith a ostBanthroological seg*ent o) ananthroological series. ,hich is located a%ter the su!stituted ele*ent +"not-. !ut an entirelydi))erent )igure$ That is. one should sea" o) the olitical exression o) the Radical Su!ect$ :$ This toic should !e integrated into the Fourth Political Theory$ t is !eyond thescoe o) this !oo" to de'elo it$ ut in general ,e can say an alternati'e to olitical ostBanthroology is also ostBanthroology. !ut di))erent$ ;$ The routes o) the transgression o) hu*anity@s !oundaries or li*itations *ay not !e as such as in the case o) the di'idual$ t is not really the hu*an that *eets ,ith the ostBhu*an in the olitical ostBanthroology. !ut a reBhu*an. the reBconcet o) the hu*an$The oint o) origin that ca*e !e)ore the hu*an is arallel to hi* and ,ill re*ain a)ter hi*$ =$ 5ere ,e can also touch on the delicate the*e o) angelo*orhosis$ t is noaccident that in the eschatology o) *ost religions and traditions ,e are dealing ,ith the -ndkamp%[2#?] anora*ic 'ie,. ,hich necessarily in'ol'es angels$ n 5olly,ood !loc"!usters. indeed. this also su))ers )ro* si*ulation$ ut it is ine'ita!le$

The olitical exression o) the Radical Su!ect can !e de)ined. not as the area o) olitical theology +%arl Sch*itt-. !ut as the area o) olitical angelology$ This toic re9uires)urther de'elo*ent$



A..en!i' **

The eta.hysics of Chaos

odern Euroean hilosohy !egan ,ith the concet o) logos and the logical ordero) !eing$ For o'er t,o thousand years. this concet !eca*e )ully exhausted$ All the otentialities and the rinciles laid in this logocentric ,ay o) thin"ing ha'e !y no, !eenthoroughly exlored. exosed and a!andoned !y hilosohers$ 5o,e'er. the ro!le* o) chaos and the nature o) chaos ,as neglected and ut aside)ro* the 'ery !eginning o) this hilosohy$ The only hilosohy ,e "no, at resent is the hilosohy o) logos$ ut chaos is so*ething oosite to logos. its a!solute alternati'e$ Fro* the (ineteenth century and continuing until the resent day. the *osti*ortant and !rilliant Euroean hilosohers +such as Friedrich (ietHsche and #artin5eidegger- !egan to susect that logos ,as )ast aroaching its end$ So*e o) the* dared tosuggest that. )ro* no, on. ,e are li'ing in the ti*e o) the end o) logocentric hilosohy.and aroaching so*ething else$ Euroean hilosohy ,as !ased on the logocentric rincile corresonding to the rincile o) exclusion. the di))erentiating. <ree" diaeresis$J2C> All this corresondsstrictly to the *asculine attitude and re)lects a atriarchal. authoritati'e. 'ertical. andhierarchical order o) !eing and "no,ledge$ This *asculine aroach to reality i*oses order and the rincile o) exclusi'itye'ery,here$ That is er)ectly *ani)ested in Aristotle@s logic. ,here the rinciles o)identity and exclusion are ut in the central osition in the nor*ati'e *anner o) thin"ing$ Ais e9ual to A. not e9ual to notBA$ This identity excludes nonBidentity +alterity-J2C and'iceB'ersa$ 5ere it is the *ale ,ho sea"s. thin"s. acts. )ights. di'ides. orders. and so on$ (o,adays all this logocentric hilosohy has co*e to an end. and ,e *ust consider another road )or thought. not in the logocentric. hallocentric. hierarchical and exclusi'ist,ay$ ) logos no longer satis)ies us. )ascinates us. or *o!ilises us. then ,e are inclined totry so*ething else and at last to address the ro!le* o) chaos$ To !egin ,ith there are t,o di))erent concets o) chaos$ #odern hysics and hilosohy re)ers to co*lex syste*s. !i)urcation or nonBintegrating e9uations and rocesses. using the concet ?chaos@ to designate such heno*ena$ They understand !y thatnot the a!sence o) order. !ut a *ore co*licated )or* o) order that is di))icult to ercei'eas such. and is. in )act. its essence$ Such chaos or tur!ulence is calcula!le in nature. !ut,ith *ore sohisticated theoretical and *athe*atical *eans and rocedures than theinstru*ents that classical natural science is dealing ,ith$



The ter* ?chaos@ is used here in a *etahorical *anner$ n *odern science ,e arecontinuing to deal ,ith an essentially logocentric *anner o) exloring reality$ So the?chaos@ here is no *ore than a dissiati'e structure o) logos. the last result o) its decay. )all.and deco*osition$ #odern science is dealing. not ,ith so*ething other than logos" !ut,ith a "ind o) ost,logos. or exB ogos logos in the state o) ulti*ate dissolution and

regression$ The rocess o) the )inal destruction and dissiation o) logos is ta"en here )or?chaos@$ n reality. though. it has nothing to do ,ith chaos as such. ,ith chaos in the original<ree" sense o) the ter*$ t is rather a "ind o) ut*ost con)usion$ RenN <uNnon has called theera ,e are li'ing through no, an era o) con)usion$ ?%on)usion@ *eans the state o) !eingthat !oth runs arallel to order and recedes it$ Thus. ,e should *a"e a clear distinction !et,een t,o di))erent concets$ On one hand ,e ha'e the *odern concet o) chaos thatreresents ostBorder. or a *ixture o) contradictory )rag*ents o) !eing ,ithout any unityand order. lin"ed a*ongst the*sel'es !y highly sohisticated ostBlogical corresondencesand con)licts$ <illes DeleuHe has called this heno*ena a ?nonBcoBossi!le syste*co*osed !y the *ultitude o) the *onads@ +using the concet o) *onads and coBossi!ilityintroduced !y Lei!niH-.J2CC !eco*ing )or DeleuHe the ?no*ads@$J800 DeleuHe descri!es ost*odernity as a su* o) nonBcoBossi!le )rag*ents ,hich can coexist$ t ,as not ossi!lein Lei!nitH@s 'ision o) reality. !ased on the rincile o) coBossi!ility$ ut ,ithin ost*odernity ,e can see excluding ele*ents coexisting$ The nonBordered nonBcoBossi!le*onads. or no*ads. s,ar*ing around could see* to !e chaotic. and in this sense ,eusually use the ,ord chaos in e'eryday seech$ ut strictly sea"ing. ,e should *a"e adistinction$ 6e need to distinguish !et,een t,o "inds o) chaos. the ost*odernist ?chaos@ as ane9ui'alent to con)usion. a "ind o) ostBorder. and the <ree" chaos as reBorder. asso*ething that exists !e)ore ordered reality has co*e into !eing$ Only the latter can !econsidered as chaos in the roer sense o) the ,ord$ This second. !ut actually the original.concetion o) chaos should !e exa*ined care)ully and *etahysically$ The eic 'ision o) the rise and )all o) logos in the course o) the de'elo*ent o)6estern hilosohy and 6estern history ,as )irst esoused !y #artin 5eidegger. ,hoargued that in the context o) Euroean or 6estern culture. logos is not only a ri*ary hilosohical rincile. !ut also the !asis o) the religious attitude )or*ing the core o)%hristianity$ 6e can also notice that the concet o) kalam. or intellect. is at the centre o)sla*ic hilosohy and theology$ The sa*e is true )or 3udais* +at least in the 'ision o)Philo o) Alexandria.J801 and a!o'e all in #edie'al 3udais* and the @a!allah-$ Thus inhigh *odernity. ,here ,e are li'ing. ,e assist the )all o) logos acco*anied !y thecorresonding decline o) classical <recoBRo*an culture and *onotheistic religion as ,ell$These rocesses o) decadence are co*letely arallel to ,hat #artin 5eidegger considersthe resent condition o) 6estern culture as a ,hole$ 5e identi)ies the origin o) thiscondition o) decline in so*e o) the hidden and hardly recognisa!le errors co**itted duringthe early stages o) <ree" thought$ So*ething ,ent ,rong at the 'ery !eginning o) 6esternhistory. and #artin 5eidegger sees this ,rong turn recisely in the a))ir*ation o) theexclusi'ist osition o) an exclusi'ist logos$ This shi)t ,as *ade !y 5eraclitusJ802 andPar*enides.J808 !ut a!o'e all !y Plato ,ith the de'elo*ent o) hilosohic thought thaten'isaged t,o ,orlds or layers o) reality ,here existence ,as ercei'ed as the*ani)estation o) the hidden$ Later. this hidden ele*ent ,as recogniHed as logos. as the idea.the aradig*. the exa*le$ Fro* that oint on. the re)erential theory o) truth roceeds$



Truth lies in the )act o) the i**ediate corresondence o) the gi'en to the resu*edin'isi!le essence. or ?the nature that li"es to hide@J80: according to 5eraclitus$ The PreBSocratics ,ere at the )ore)ront o) this hilosohy$ The un)ettered exlosion o) the *oderntechni9ue is its logical result$ 5eidegger calls it +e,stell and thin"s it is the reason )or thecatastrohe and annihilation o) *an"ind that ine'ita!ly aroaches$ According to hi*. the

'ery concet o) logos ,as ,rong. so he roosed to radically re'ise our attitude to the 'eryessence o) hilosohy and the rocess o) thought. and to )ind another ,ay ,hich he called?the other !eginning@$ ogos )irst aeared ,ith the !irth o) 6estern hilosohy$ The earliest <ree" hilosohy arose as so*ething that already excluded chaos$ Precisely at the sa*e ti*e.logos !egan to )lourish. re'ealing a "ind o) *ighty ,ill to o,er and the a!solutisation o)the *asculine attitude to reality$ The !eco*ing o) logocentric culture ontologicallyannihilated the olar oosite to logos itsel) I the )e*inine chaos$ So chaos as so*ethingthat receded logos. ,as a!olished !y it. and its exclusi'ity ,ere !oth *ani)ested anddis*issed at the sa*e ti*e$ #asculine logos ousted )e*inine chaos$ Exclusi'ity andexclusion su!dued inclusi'ity and the inclusion$ So the %lassical ,orld ,as !orn. stretchingits li*its )or 2;00 years I u until *odernity and the rationalist scienti)ic era$ This ,orldhas co*e to its end$ ut ne'ertheless. ,e are still li'ing in its outs"irts$ At the sa*e ti*e. inthe dissiating ost*odern ,orld. all the structures o) order are degrading. disersing. and !eco*ing *ore and *ore con)used$ t is the dus" o) logos. the end o) order. the last chordo) *asculine. exclusi'ist do*ination$ ut still ,e are inside the logical structure rather thanoutside it$ y stating this. ,e ha'e conured so*e !asic solutions concerning the )uture$ The)irst ossi!le solution is the return to the "ingdo* o) logos. the %onser'ati'e Re'olution.the restoration o) *ale )ullBscale do*ination in all sheres o) the li)e I in hilosohy.religion. and in e'eryday li)e$ This could !e done siritually. socially or technically$ This,ay ,here techni9ue *eets siritual order ,as )unda*entally exlored and studied !y5eidegger@s )riend. Ernst 3Wnger$ t is a return to classicis* acco*anied !y an aeal totechnological rogress$ t is an e))ort to sa'e the )alling logos. the restoration o) traditionalsociety. and the eternally ne, Order$ The second ossi!le solution is to accet the current trends and to )ollo, thedirection o) con)usion. !eco*ing *ore and *ore in'ol'ed in the dissiation o) structure. in ostBstructuralis*. and trying to get leasure out o) the co*)orta!le glide into nothingness$That is the otion chosen !y the Le)t and the li!eral reresentati'es o) ost*odernity$ t is*odern nihilis* at its !est I originally identi)ied !y (ietHsche and exlored thoroughly !y 5eidegger$ The concet o) nothing !eing the otential resent in the rincile o) identity roer to logos itsel) is not the li*it o) the rocess o) the )all o) the logical order. !ut ratherthe construction o) a rational real* o) the unli*ited exansion o) horiHontal decay. theincalcula!le *ultitudes o) the )lo,ers o) utre)action$ 5o,e'er. ,e could choose a third ath and try to transcend the !orders o) logos andste out !eyond the crisis o) the ost*odern ,orld. that is literally ost*odern. i$e$. lying !eyond *odernity. ,here the dissiation o) logos reaches its li*it$ So the 9uestion o) this'ery li*it is crucial$ Seen )ro* the standoint o) logos in general. including its *ostdecayed asects. !eyond the do*ain o) order lies nothing$ So crossing the !order o) !eingis ontologically i*ossi!le$ (othing is not so sea"s all logocentric 6estern ontology a)ter Par*enides$ This i*ossi!ility asserts the in)initeness o) the outs"irts o) logos and grants tothe decay. inside the real* o) order. eternal continuity$ eyond the !order o) !eing lies



nothing. and to *o'e to,ard this li*it is analytically in)inite and unending +the

aporiae[)><] o) eno o) EleaJ80= are here )ully 'alid-$ So. no one can cross that )rontierinto the nonBexistent not,!eing that si*ly is not. ) ,e insist. ne'ertheless. in doing this. then ,e should aeal to chaos in itsoriginal <ree" sense. as to so*ething that roceeds !eing and order. so*ething reB

ontological$ 6e stand in )ront o) a really i*ortant and crucial ro!le*$ A great nu*!er o) eole today are unsatis)ied ,ith ,hat is going on around us. ,ith the a!solute crisis o)'alues. religions. hilosohy. olitical and social order. ,ith ost*odern conditions. ,iththe con)usion and er'ersion. and ,ith this age o) the ut*ost decay in general$ ut considering the essence o) the decline o) our ci'ilisation to the resent state. ,ecannot loo" to the receding hases o) the logocentric order and its i*licit structures. !ecause it ,as recisely logos itsel) that has !rought things to the state ,here they are no,. !earing ,ithin itsel) the ger*s o) the resent decay$ 5eidegger identi)ied. ,ith extre*ecredi!ility. the roots o) the techni9ue in the PreBSocratic solution to the ro!le* o) !eing !y*eans o) logos$ ogos cannot sa'e us )ro* the situation that it is the cause o)$ ogos is o)no use to us here any*ore$ Only the reBontological chaos can gi'e as a hint a!out ho, to go !eyond the tra o) ost*odernity$ t ,as ut aside on the e'e o) the creation o) the logical structure o) !eing asa cornerstone$ (o, it is its turn to co*e into lay$ Other,ise. ,e ,ill !e doo*ed to accetthe ostBlogical dissiated ost*odernity that retends to !e eternal in so*e ,ay !ecause itannihilates ti*e$ #odernity has "illed eternity and ost*odernity is "illing ti*e$ Thearchitecture o) the ost*odern ,orld is co*letely )rag*ented. er'erse and con)used$ t isa la!yrinth ,ithout an exit. as )olded and t,isted as a #oe!ius stri$J80> ogos" ,hich,as the guarantor o) strictness and order. ser'es here instead to grant cur'ature andcroo"edness. !eing used to reser'e the i*assa!ility o) the ontological !order ,ithnothing )ro* the e'entual and ine'ita!le tresassers see"ing to escae into the !eyond$ So the only ,ay to sa'e oursel'es. to sa'e hu*anity and culture )ro* this snare. isto ta"e the ste !eyond the logocentric culture. to,ards chaos$ 6e cannot restore logos and order. !ecause they !ear in the*sel'es the reason )ortheir o,n eternal destruction$ n other ,ords. to sa'e the exclusi'e logos" ,e should *a"ean aeal to the alternati'e inclusi'e instance that is chaos$ ut ho, could ,e use the concet o) chaos and !ase our hilosohy on it i). u tono,. hilosohy has al,ays !een )or us so*ething logical !y de)inition7 n order to resol'e this di))iculty. ,e should aroach chaos not )ro* the osition o) logos !ut )ro* that o) chaos itsel)$ t can !e co*ared to the )e*inine 'ision. the )e*inineunderstanding o) the Other that is not excluded !ut. on the contrary. included in thesa*eness$ ogos regards itsel) as ,hat is and as ,hat is e9ual to itsel)$ t can accet thedi))erences inside itsel) !ecause it excludes the Other that lies ,ithout$ So the ,ill to o,er is ,or"ing. the la, o) so'ereignty$ eyond logos. logos asserts. lies nothing. notso*ething$ So logos" excluding all other than itsel). excludes chaos$ %haos uses a di))erentstrategy$ t includes in itsel) all that it is. !ut at the sa*e all that it is not$ So allBinclusi'echaos includes also ,hat is not inclusi'e. na*ely that ,hich excludes chaos$ So chaos doesnot ercei'e logos as the Other. !ut as itsel). or as so*ething nonBexistent$ ogos as the)irst rincile o) exclusion is included in chaos. resent in it. en'eloed !y it. and has a lace granted inside o) it. as the *other !earing the !a!y !ears in hersel) ,hat is a art o)



hersel) and ,hat is not a art o) her at the sa*e ti*e$ #an concei'es ,o*an as an external !eing and see"s to enetrate her$ 6o*an considers *an as so*ething internal and see"s togi'e hi* a !irth. and to gi'e !irth to hi*$ %haos is the eternal nascence o) the Other. that is. o) logos$ To su* u. chaotic hilosohy is ossi!le !ecause chaos itsel) includes logos as

so*e inner ossi!ility$ t can )reely identi)y it. cherish it and recognise its exclusi'ityincluded in its e'erlasting li)e$ So ,e co*e to the )igure o) the 'ery secial. chaotic logos.that is. a co*letely and a!solutely )resh logos !eing eternally re'i'ed !y the ,aters o)chaos$ This chaotic logos is at the sa*e ti*e exclusi'e +this is ,hy it is roerly logos- andinclusi'e +!eing chaotic-$ t deals ,ith sa*eness and otherness di))erently$ %haos can thin"$ 6e should as" her ho, she does this$ 6e ha'e as"ed logos$ (o, itis the turn o) chaos$ 6e *ust learn to thin" ,ith chaos and ,ithin the chaos$ could suggest. as an exa*le. the hilosohy o) the 3aanese thin"er Kitaro (ishida.J80 ,ho has constructed the ?logic o) !asho@ or the ?logic o) laces@. in lace o)Aristotle@s logic$ 6e should exlore other cultures. rather than 6estern. to try to )ind di))erentexa*les o) inclusi'e hilosohy. inclusi'e religions. and so on$ %haotic logos is not onlyan a!stract construction$ ) ,e see" ,ell. ,e can )ind the real )or*s o) such intellectualtraditions in archaic societies. as ,ell as in Eastern theology and *ystical currents$ To *a"e an aeal to chaos is the only ,ay to sa'e logos$ ogos needs a sa'ior. itcannot sa'e itsel)$ t needs so*ething oosite to itsel) to !e restored in the critical situationo) ost*odernity$ 6e could not transcend ost*odernity$ The latter cannot !e o'erco*e,ithout aeal to so*ething that has !een rior to the reason o) its decay$ So ,e shouldresort to hilosohies other than 6estern$ n conclusion. it is not correct to concei'e chaos as so*ething !elonging to the ast$%haos is eternal. !ut eternally coexisting ,ith ti*e$ There)ore. chaos is al,ays a!solutelyne,. )resh. and sontaneous$ t could !e regarded as a source o) any "ind o) in'ention and)reshness !ecause its eternity has. in itsel). al,ays so*ething *ore than ,as. is. or ,ill !ein ti*e$ ogos itsel) cannot exist ,ithout chaos. li"e )ish cannot li'e ,ithout ,ater$ 6hen,e ta"e a )ish out o) ,ater. it dies$ 6hen the )ish !egins to insist excessi'ely that there isso*ething other than ,ater around it. e'en i) it is true. it co*e to the shore and dies there$ tis a "ind o) *ad )ish$ 6hen ,e ut it !ac" in the ,ater. it only u*s out again$ So. let itdie this ,ay i) it ,ants$ There are other )ishes dee in the ,ater$ Let us )ollo, the*$ The astrono*ical era that is co*ing to an end is the era o) the )ish constellation. o)Pisces$ The )ish on the shore$ The dying one$ So ,e need ,ater no, 'ery !adly$ Only a co*letely ne, attitude to thought. a ne, ontology. and a ne, gnoseologycan sa'e logos out o) the ,ater. on the shore. in the desert that gro,s and gro,s. as (ietHsche )oresa,$ Only chaos and the alternati'e hilosohy !ased on inclusi'ity can sa'e *odernhu*anity and the ,orld )ro* the conse9uences o) the degradation and decay o) theexclusi'ist rincile called logos$ ogos has exired and ,e all ,ill !e !uried under itsruins unless ,e *a"e an aeal to chaos and its *etahysical rinciles. and use the* as a !asis )or so*ething ne,$ Perhas this is ?the other !eginning@ 5eidegger so"e o)$



?ther boo4s .ublishe! by Ar4tos$

Deyond ;uman ights

!y Alain de Denoist

9ani%esto %or a -uropean enaissance

!y Alain de Denoist I Charles Champetier

The Pro!lem o% (emocracy

!y Alain de Denoist

+ermany’s Third -mpire

!y Arthur 9oeller van den Druck

The Arctic ;ome in the 7edas

!y Dal +angadhar Tilak

evolution %rom A!ove

!y @erry Dolton


!y Ale:ander (ugin

9etaphysics o% Bar !y Hulius -vola

The Path o% Cinna!ar/ An 6ntellectual Auto!iography

!y Hulius -vola

Archeo%uturism

!y +uillaume Faye

Convergence o% Catastrophes

!y +uillaume Faye

Bhy Be Fight !y +uillaume Faye

The BA'P uestion!y Andre$ Fraser

The 'aga o% the Aryan ace volumes =,2!y Porus ;omi ;ave$ala



The 'aga o% the Aryan ace volumes ),<

!y Porus ;omi ;ave$ala

The 8$ls o% A%rasia!

!y ars ;olger ;olm

(e 0aturae 0atura

!y Ale:ander Haco!

Fighting %or the -ssence

!y Pierre @re!s

Can i%e PrevailJ

!y Pentti inkola

The Ten Commandments o% Propaganda!y Drian Anse Patrick

A ;and!ook o% Traditional iving !y aido

The Agni and the -cstasy!y 'teven H. osen

The Hedi in the otus/

'tar Bars and the ;indu Tradition!y 'teven H. osen

6t Cannot De 'tormed !y -rnst von 'alomon

Tradition I evolution!y Troy 'outhgate

Against (emocracy and -uality!y Tomislav 'unic

The 6nitiate/ Hournal o% Traditional 'tudies

!y (avid H. Bing%ield Ked.L



J1 This re)ers to one o) the "ey concets o) <uy De!ord +1C81B1CC:-. a French#arxist hilosoher and the )ounder o) the Situationist nternational ,hose ideas ha'e !eco*e in)luential on !oth the radical Le)t and Right$ The sectacle. as descri!ed in his rincial ,or". The Society o) the Sectacle. is one o) the *eans !y ,hich the caitalistesta!lish*ent *aintains its authority in the *odern ,orld I na*ely. !y reducing all

genuine hu*an exeriences to reresentational i*ages in the *ass *edia. thus allo,ing the o,ersBthatB!e to deter*ine ho, indi'iduals exerience reality$BEd$ J2 Alain Soral. %o*rendre l@e*ire de*ain la gou'ernance glo!ale ou la ref'oltedes nations7 +/nderstanding E*ire <lo!al <o'ern*ent To*orro, or the Re'olt o) the (ations7 I Paris lanche. 2011-$BEd$ J8 Alain de enoist +!$ 1C:8- )ounded the <roue*ent de Recherches et d@Xtudes our la %i'ilisation EuroNenne. the )irst and *ost ro*inent grou o) ,hat ca*e to !eter*ed the ?Euroean (e, Right@. in 1C=. and continues to !e its *ost ,ellB"no,nreresentati'e$BEd$ J: n an address gi'en in France on 12 #ay 1CC8. enoist called )or a reection o)the traditional Le)tVRight dichoto*y. instead re)erring the ter*s ?centre@ and ?erihery@$5e de)ined the centre as the 'arious )actions co*rising the do*inant ideology o) thecountry )ro* !oth ends o) the sectru*. and the erihery as all those )orces ,hich reectthis ideology$ Thus. in his 'ie,. the )ar Right and )ar Le)t should naturally ally ,ith oneanother. rather than oining ,ith any grous +such as *ainstrea* conser'ati'es or li!erals-,ho accet the re'ailing order. and there)ore co*ro*ise the*sel'es$BEd$

J; %arl Sch*itt +1B1C;- ,as an i*ortant <er*an urist ,ho ,rote a!out olitical science. geoolitics and constitutional la,$ 5e ,as art o) the %onser'ati'eRe'olutionary *o'e*ent o) the 6ei*ar era$ 5e also !rie)ly suorted the (ationalSocialists at the !eginning o) their regi*e. although they later turned against hi*$ 5ere*ains highly in)luential in the )ields o) la, and hilosohy$BEd$ J= %arl Sch*itt ,rote that the ene*y is ?the shae or con)iguration o) our o,n9uestion@. in Theory o) the Partisan +(e, or" Telos Press. 200>-. $ ;$ A )ootnote to this hrase in the Telos Press edition o) this ,or" notes that its *eaning is exlained inSch*itt@s ostB,ar note!oo"s ?5istoria in nuce Jhistory in a nutshell$ Friend and Ene*y$The )riend is he ,ho a))ir*s and con)ir*s *e$ The ene*y is he ,ho challenges *e+(ure*!erg 1C:>-$ 6ho can challenge *e7 asically. only *ysel)$ The ene*y is he ,hode)ines *e$ That *eans in concreto only *y !rother can challenge *e and only *y !rother can !e *y ene*y$@ Fro* <lossariu* Au)Heichnungen der 3ahre 1C:>B1C;1 +erlinDunc"er 4 5u*!lot. 1CC1-. $ 21>$BEd$ J> ioolitics. as de)ined !y #ichel Foucault in his !oo" The 5istory o) Sexuality.as ,ell as in his lectures. is the *eans !y ,hich a olitical syste* regulates the actual hysical. !iological li'es o) the eole it go'erns. such as through health and *edicine.sexuality and reroduction. and )a*ily li)e$BEd$ J 3ean audrillard +1C2CB200>- ,as a French hilosoher and cultural theorist,ho is regarded as one o) the *ost i*ortant ost*odernist thin"ers$ n se'eral o) his,or"s. such as The llusion o) the End. he osited that ci'ilisation is entering a eriod in,hich the notion o) history itsel). and o) historical rogress as descri!ed !y #arx. nolonger has any *eaning$ There)ore. history is ending. not !ecause any sort o) goal has !eenreached. !ut !ecause history has !eco*e irrele'ant$BEd$ JC n Russian. Proti' li!eraliH*a K chet'ertoi olitiches"oi teorii$ This is acollection o) essays that ,as ut together !y Dugin. in consultation ,ith Alain de enoist.



)or the Russian readershi$ There is no corresonding title in French or English$BEd$ J10 Daniel ell. The End o) deology +%a*!ridge 5ar'ard /ni'ersity Press.1C=0-$ J11 The Third 6ay is a ter* used )or a ,ide 'ariety o) olitical and econo*icideologies that ha'e atte*ted to to transcend the dichoto*y !et,een li!eral de*ocracy

and socialis*$BEd$ J12 5annah Arendt +1C0=B1C>;- ,as a <er*anB3e,ish olitical theorist ,hostudied ,ith #artin 5eidegger$ She )led the (aHis and li'ed )or *ost o) the re*ainder o)her li)e in the /nited States. !eco*ing one o) the *ost in)luential olitical hilosohers o)the T,entieth century$ 5ere Dugin is re)erring to her !oo". The Origins o) Totalitarianis*+(e, or" 5arcourt. race 4 %o$. 1C;1-$BEd$ J18 Arthur #oeller 'an den ruc" +1>=B1C2;- ,as one o) the rincial authors o) the <er*an %onser'ati'e Re'olution$ 5e is !est "no,n )or his 1C28 !oo". Das DritteReich +translated as <er*any@s Third E*ire-$ A )ollo,er o) (ietHsche. he ad'ocated theidea o) a third <er*an e*ire to relace the 6ei*ar Reu!lic ,hich ,ould e*!ody asynthesis o) socialis* and nationalis* and ro'ide )or the needs o) all citiHens. !ut ,ithin ahierarchical )ra*e,or" !ased on traditional 'alues$ Desite 5itler@s aroriation o) his !oo"@s title. he reected (ational Socialis* )or its antiBintellectual nature in a note he le)t ust rior to his suicide$BEd$ J1: D*itri #ereHh"o's"y +1=;B1C:1- ,as a Russian no'elist ,ith a strong*ystical !ent associated ,ith Sy*!olis* and the Sil'er Age o) Russian literature$ #any o)his !oo"s are a'aila!le in English. including Death o) the <ods. Resurrection o) the <ods.and The Ro*ance o) Leonardo da Ginci$ 5e )led Russia a)ter the Re'olution o) 1C1> and !eca*e a 'irulent antiB%o**unist. suorting #ussolini and 5itler$BEd$ J1; See Alain de enoist. eyond 5u*an Rights De)ending Freedo*s +LondonAr"tos. 2011-$BEd$ J1= Francis Fu"uya*a +!$ 1C;2- is an A*erican olitical hilosoher ,ho is !est"no,n )or his 1CC2 !oo". The End o) 5istory and the Last #an. ,hich ostulated that ,iththe triu*h o) li!eral de*ocracy at the end o) the %old 6ar. hu*anity had attained the er)ect )or* o) go'ern*ent and that the re*nants o) other ideologies ,ould soon assa,ay$ t ,as 'ie,ed !y *any as the credo o) A*erica@s olitical and econo*ic do*inanceo) the ,orld during the 1CC0s$ Although ,idely associated ,ith A*erican neoconser'atis*at that ti*e. he has distanced hi*sel) )ro* the *o'e*ent in recent years$BEd$ J1> Alexander ino'ie' +1C22B200=- ,as a Russian logician ,ho ser'ed in theRed Ar*y ,ith distinction during the Second 6orld 6ar$ During the reHhne' era. he !eca*e one o) the So'iet /nion@s *ost noted logicians. !ut he also gained notoriety )orexressing *ild dissent against the regi*e$ A)ter he ,rote se'eral ,or"s o) )iction that,ere critical o) the So'iet /nion in the 1C>0s. he ,as stried o) his honours and allo,edto e*igrate to 6est <er*any in 1C>. and continued to ,rite criti9ues o) the So'iets untilthe *idB1C0s$ 6ith the rise o) <or!ache' and erestroi"a. ho,e'er. he !egan to de)end%o**unis*. and 'ie,ed the ostBSo'iet regi*e o) oris eltsin as art o) a 6esternconsiracy to destroy Russia$ 5e returned to Russia in 1CCC. !eco*ing an outso"en critico) glo!aliHation$BEd$ J1 #i"hail S$ Agurs"y. deologiia natsionalB!olshe'iH*a +#osco, Algorit*.2008- JThe deology o) (ational olshe'is*$ +See also his earlier !oo" #i"hail Agurs"y.The Third Ro*e (ational olshe'is* in the /SSR Joulder 6est'ie, Press. 1C>$BEd$-

J1C Sergei KaraB#urHa. So'ets"aia tsi'iliHatsiia ot nachala do nashi"h dnei



+#osco, Algorit*. 200- JThe So'iet %i'iliHation Fro* the eginning until Today$ J20 English sea"ers *ay ha'e an easier ti*e accessing so*e,hat related ,or"son the So'iet /nion. *odernity. and traditionalis*. such as Da'id L$ 5o))*an. StalinistGalues The %ultural (or*s o) So'iet #odernity. 1C1>B1C:1 +thaca %ornell /ni'ersityPress. 2008- and Da'id randen!erger. (ational olshe'is* Stalinist #ass %ulture and

the For*ation o) the #odern Russian (ational dentity. 1C81B1C;= +%a*!ridge 5ar'ard/ni'ersity Press. 2002-$J21 #ar" 1210$

J22 Alexandre KoQ'e. ntroduction to the Reading o) 5egel Lectures on thePheno*enology o) the Sirit +(e, or" asic oo"s. 1C=C-$ J28 Francis Fu"ya*a. The End o) 5istory and the Last #an +(e, or" FreePress. 1CC2-$ J2: 3ulius E'ola +1CB1C>:- ,as the *ost i*ortant talian *e*!er o) thetraditionalist school. ,hich is to say that he oosed *odernity in )a'our o) an aroach toli)e consistent ,ith the teachings o) the ancient sacred texts$BEd$ J2; The (ational olshe'i" Party e*erged in Russia in 1CC2. shortly a)ter thecollase o) the So'iet /nion. see"ing to continue the legacy o) the original (ationalolshe'i"s )ro* the 1C20s$ t ,as originally led !y Eduard Li*ono' and Dugin. althoughDugin soon le)t the arty to )ound his o,n. the (ational olshe'i" Front. and latera!andoned (ational olshe'is* altogether to )or* the Eurasia #o'e*ent in 2001$ Theoriginal (P has !een reeatedly !anned !y the Russian go'ern*ent. although its *e*!erscontinue to agitate$ Se'eral other grous continue to use the (ational olshe'i" na*e. !othin Russia and a!road$ (ational olshe'i" ideology. ,hich e*erged a)ter the First 6orld6ar as an atte*t to synthesise %o**unis* and nationalis*. ,as originally )or*ulated !yso*e articiants in <er*any@s %onser'ati'e Re'olution. such as Ernst 3Wnger and Ernst (ie"isch$ (ational olshe'is* ,as also resent a*ong so*e *e*!ers o) the antiBSo'iet6hite *o'e*ent and e'en a*ong so*e So'iet %o**unists in the days o) the Russian%i'il 6ar. although Lenin and Stalin !oth oosed it$ Regardless. ele*ents o) the ideologyreBe*erged in Stalin@s !rand o) nationalis*. ,hich !egan to aear in the 1C80s$BEd$

J2= (i"olai /strialo' +1C0B1C8>- ,as a ro)essor and Sla'ohile ,ho )led theSo'iet /nion )ollo,ing the Russian Re'olution and oined the antiBSo'iet 6hite*o'e*ent$ Originally oosed to %o**unis*. he later sought a )usion o) ele*ents o)So'iet %o**unis* ,ith Russian nationalis*$ 5e returned to the So'iet /nion in 1C8;. !elie'ing that (ational olshe'i" ideas ,ere !eco*ing *ore acceta!le. !ut ,as charged,ith esionage and executed in 1C8>. during the <reat Purge$BEd$ J2> Ernst (ie"isch +1CB1C=>- ,as a <er*an olitician ,ho ,as initially a%o**unist. !ut !y the 1C20s sought to *erge %o**unis* ,ith nationalis*$ 5e u!lisheda ournal. 6iderstand +Resistance-. and alied the ter* (ational olshe'i" to hi*sel) andhis )ollo,ers$ 5e reected (ational Socialis* as insu))iciently socialist. and ,asi*risoned !y the* in 1C8>. and !eca*e !lind$ /on his release in 1C:;. he suorted theSo'iet /nion and *o'ed to East <er*any. !ut !eca*e disillusioned !y the So'iets@treat*ent o) ,or"ers and returned to the 6est in 1C;8$BEd$ J2 French ?the art o) go'erning@$BEd$ J2C #ax 6e!er +1=:B1C20- ,as a <er*an ,ho is considered one o) the )ounderso) sociology$ 5is rincial ,or" is The Protestant Ethic and the Sirit o) %aitalis*$BEd$ J80 Fro* <ree". ,here it ,as alied to the Oly*ian antheon. it *eans a !attlea*ong the gods$BEd$



J81 For a traditionalist ta"e on this idea. see RenN <uNnon. Theosohy 5istory o)a PseudoBReligion +5illsdale. (e, or" Sohia Perennis. 2001-. The Siritist Fallacy+5illsdale Sohia Perennis. 2008-. and The Reign o) Yuantity and the Signs o) the Ti*es+5illsdale Sohia Perennis. 200:- and %harles /ton. The Syste* o) Antichrist Truth andFalsehood in Post*odernis* and the (e, Age +5illsdale Sohia Perennis. 200;-$BEd$

J82 Dugin uses the ter* Tradition in the sa*e sense as RenN <uNnon. 3ulius E'olaand Fritho) Schuon na*ely. as a set o) transcendental *etahysical rinciles ,hich liesat the heart o) all authentic religions. and ,hich re*ains the sa*e e'en ,hen there aredi))erences in the exoteric ractices and doctrines$BEd$ J88 Disensationalis* originated as a (ineteenthBcentury e'angelical *o'e*ent,hich holds that %hrist ,ill hysically return to the ,orld to rule )or a thousand years riorto the end o) the ,orld. )ul)illing <od@s ro*ises to srael !y allo,ing the 3e,s to return tothe 5oly Land. !ut that rior to this e'ent there ,ill !e a rature in ,hich true !elie'ers aretransorted to 5ea'en. lea'ing only un!elie'ers to su))er the catastrohes that ,ill occur !e)ore %hrist@s return$ n resentBday A*erica. disensationalis* is *ost e'ident ine'angelical *o'e*ent such as the atists and the Pentecostals. and has led to the rise o)%hristian ionis* in A*erican olitics$BEd$ J8: According to se'eral ne,s agencies and ,itnesses. President ush. in a*eeting ,ith Palestinian leaders in Egyt in 3une 2008. told those in attendance that <odhad ordered hi* to in'ade A)ghanistan and ra9$ The 6hite 5ouse denied the reorts$BEd$ J8; Deis*. a roduct o) the Enlighten*ent. arose in the Se'enteenth andEighteenth centuries. holding that the existence o) <od can !e deduced rationally.regardless o) the teachings o) the %hurch. and that ,hile <od created the uni'erse. he ne'er inter'enes in it. thus eli*inating the ossi!ility o) di'ine re'elation or *iracles$BEd$ J8= 5eraclitus +c$ ;8;B:>; %E- ,as a reBSocratic <ree" hilosoher$BEd$ J8> <ree" ?nature@. or *ore recisely. ?that ,hich exists@$BEd$ J8 <ree" ?idea$ The <ree"s !elie'ed that there is a logos ,hich orders the entireuni'erse$BEd$ J8C Par*enides ,as a reBSocratic <ree" hilosoher o) the Fi)th century %E$BEd$ J:0 <eBstell. ,hich can !e translated literally as ?)ra*ing@. ,as used !y 5eideggerto descri!e technology as the *ode o) hu*an existence in the *odern ,orld$BEd$ J:1 n Friedrich 5lderlin@s oe* ?read and 6ine@. the night is used tosy*!olically reresent our age. ,hen the ancient gods o) <reece and %hrist ha'e le)t the,orld and it is only the oets ,ho atte*t to "ee their *e*ory ali'e until their return$#artin 5eidegger discusses this oe* at length in his )a*ous essay ?6hy Poets7@. in#artin 5eidegger. O)) the eaten Trac" +%a*!ridge %a*!ridge /ni'ersity Press. 2002-$BEd$ J:2 #artin 5eidegger. O)) the eaten Trac". $ 222$ J:8 Os,ald Sengler +10B1C8=- ,as a <er*an hilosoher ,ho is regarded asone o) the rincial %onser'ati'e Re'olutionary )igures o) the 6ei*ar eriod in <er*any$5is *ost i*ortant ,or" ,as his t,oB'olu*e 1C22V28 !oo". The Decline o) the 6est. in,hich he theorised that all ci'ilisations go through an ine'ita!le cycle o) ages o) rise anddecline in o,er. ,ith the resent age o) the 6est currently entering its declining eriod$BEd$ J:: Francis acon +1;=1B1=2=- ,as an English hilosoher ,ho is credited ,ithde'eloing the notion o) e*iricis* and the scienti)ic *ethod. ,hich hold that "no,ledge



can only e*erge )ro* sensory ercetion. and that theories can only !e ro'en througho!ser'ations o) the ,orld ,hich can !e reeated$BEd$ J:; ssue 1 o) the ournal Russ"oe Gre*ia +Russian Ti*e-. u!lished in 200C.,as co*letely dedicated to the su!ect o) conser'atis*$ See also A$ <$ Dugin. ?The FourthPolitical Theory@. Pro)ile : +=08-. 22 Dece*!er 200$

J:= For EnglishBlanguage online resources. see. a*ong *any others. nternationalEurasian #o'e*ent +httVVe'raHia$in)oVindex$h7ne,langenglish-. <lo!alRe'olutionary Alliance +grane,s$in)o-. The <reen Star +a*erican)ront$in)o-. and OenRe'olt +oenre'olt$in)o-$BEd$

J:> Alexander Dugin. %het'ertaia olitiches"aia teoriia +St$ Peters!urg A*hora.200C- I on the 6e! httVV"onser'atiH*$orgV"onser'atiH*Va*)oraV08120C1;801=$xht*l$ J: Pro)$ Dugin *eans conser'ati'e ideologies ,ithin the do*ain o) )ree *ar"etli!eralis*. such as the Reu!lican Party in the /nited States and the %onser'ati'e Party inthe /nited Kingdo*$BEd$

J:C **anuel #aurice 6allerstein. A)ter Li!eralis* +(e, or" (e, Press.1CC;-$ J;0 %arl Sch*itt. The (o*os o) the Earth in the nternational La, o) the 3usPu!licu* Euroaeu* +(e, or" Telos Press. 2008-$ J;1 This articular chater ,as not included in the original Russian edition o)Fourth Political Theory$BEd$ J;2 Latin ?residual@$BEd$ J;8 According to ancient %hinese and Persian legends. solar eclises ,ere caused !y a dragon eating the Sun$BEd$ J;: n Russian )airy tales. Sneguroch"a. or the Sno, #aiden. is the granddaughter o) Ded #oroH. the Russian e9ui'alent o) Santa %laus or Father %hrist*as$ A)ter thecele!ration o) %hrist*as ,as a!olished in the So'iet /nion. the gi'ing o) resents and so)orth *o'ed to (e, ear@s Day. and this re*ains a Russian tradition to this day$ n *odern'ersions o) the old )airy tales. the Sno, #aiden is so*eti*es catured !y e'il sirits. suchas the ,itch a!a aga. !e)ore (e, ear@s Day. and has to !e rescued !y Ded #oroH$BEd$ J;; (o asarZn ,as adoted as a !attle cry !y the %o**unist )orces in theSanish %i'il 6ar. in their )ight against Franco@s nationalist ar*y$ 6hen Franco catured#adrid in 1C8C. he resonded ,ith ?5e*os asado@ +,e ha'e assed-$BEd$ J;= Sanish ?has not assed@$BEd$ J;> Russian ?indeendent corses@$ Russians use this ter* to re)er to (aHisy*athisers a*ong the 6est /"rainians$BEd$

J; 3ohn Stuart #ill +10=B1>8- ,as an English hilosoher o) utilitarianis* andone o) the *ost i*ortant theorists o) li!eralis*$ n his !oo" On Li!erty. he ad'anced theidea that the indi'idual. and not the state. should !e the !asis o) society. and that citiHensshould !e a!le to exercise co*lete *oral and econo*ic )reedo*. excet in cases ,heretheir actions *ay har* other *e*!ers o) the state$BEd$ J;C 3ohn Stuart #ill. On Li!erty and Other 6ritings +%a*!ridge %a*!ridge/ni'ersity Press. 1CC-$ J=0 <io'anni <entile +1>;B1C::- ,as an talian hilosoher ,ho de'eloed ,hathe ter*ed ?Actual dealis*@. in that he !elie'ed that dealist hilosohy ,as only rele'antin ter*s o) ho, it could !e alied to li)e itsel). as oosed to *ere seculation$ 5e alsoheld to the cororati'e idea that an indi'idual@s li)e only attained *eaning in relation to thestate$ 5e ,as a staunch Fascist )ro* 1C22 until his *urder at the hands o) antiBFascist



artisans in the Sal Reu!lic. ,as a *e*!er o) the Fascist <rand %ouncil. and ,asregarded as the o))icial hilosoher o) talian Fascis*$BEd$ J=1 A$ 3a*es <regor. <io'anni <entile Philosoher o) Fascis* +(e, runs,ic". (e, 3ersey Transaction Pu!lishers. 2001-$ J=2 Al)red Rosen!erg. The #yth o) the T,entieth %entury An E'aluation o) the

SiritualBntellectual %on)rontations o) Our Age +Torrance. %ali)ornia (oontide Press.1C2-$ J=8 Ed*und 5usserl +1;CB1C8- ,as a ,idely in)luential Austrian 3e,ish hilosoher. and one o) the teachers o) #artin 5eidegger$ 5e )ounded the heno*enological school o) hilosohy in 1C00. ri*arily through his !oo". Logicaln'estigations +London Routledge. 1C>0-. and ela!orated )urther on his theories in 1C18 indeas +London Allen 4 /n,in. 1C81-$BEd$ J=: EochN. or ?susension@. to the ancient <ree"s. ,as the act o) susending allone@s udg*ents a!out the ,ay in ,hich the ,orld exists$ 5usserl exanded uon thisconcet. !elie'ing that the only ,ay to study consciousness ,as to distinguish !et,eenconsciousness and the o!ects in the ,orld that it is ercei'ing$ n doing this. 5usserl !elie'ed it ,as ossi!le to arri'e at the essence o) things$BEd$ J=; This ,as 5usserl@s ter* )or the ,orld o) o!ects that lies !eyond hu*an ercetion$BEd$ J== %arl Sch*itt. Political Theology Four %haters on the %oncet o)So'ereignty +%a*!ridge. #assachusetts #T Press. 1C;-$ J=> The Annales School. a school o) historiograhy. ,as )ounded in 1C2C. !ut ,asta"en in a ne, direction ,hen the historian Fernand raudel +1C02B1C;- !egan to assu*ethe leadershi o) the grou in the 1C;0s$ raudel !elie'ed that historiograhy ,as too)ocused on shortBter* e'ents. such as crises. and seci)ic e'ents. ,hile not enough attention,as aid to the longBter* de'elo*ent o) history and those ele*ents ,hich re*ainconsistent through long eriods o) ti*e$ %ontinuities. the school held. ,ere *uch *orei*ortant than sudden changes$ They also reected the #arxist 'ie, o) historical*aterialis*$BEd$ J= Peter L$ erger +ed$-. The DeseculariHation o) the 6orld Resurgent Religionand 6orld Politics +<rand Raids. #ichigan 6$ $ Eerd*ans. 1CCC-$ J=C %arl Sch*itt. Dictatorshi +Ox)ord lac",ell Pu!lishers. 2010-$ J>0 According to Sch*itt. the 'alidity o) a articular *oral or legal recet hasnothing to do ,ith its seci)ic nature. !ut only deends on the authority )ro* ,hich it ,asissued$ J>1 The rhiHo*e concet according to DeleuHe and <uattari ?1 and 2 Princileso) connection and heterogeneity any oint o) a rhiHo*e can !e connected to anythingother. and *ust !e 8$ Princile o) *ultilicity only ,hen the *ultile is e))ecti'elytreated as a su!stanti'e. *ultilicityU that it ceases to ha'e any relation to the One assu!ect or o!ect. natural or siritual reality. i*age and ,orld :$ Princile o) asigni)yingruture against the o'ersigni)ying !rea"s searating structures or cutting across a singlestructure$ A rhiHo*e *ay !e !ro"en. !ut it ,ill start u again on one o) its old lines. or onne, lines ; and = Princile o) cartograhy and decalco*ania a rhiHo*e is not a*ena!leto any structural or generati'e *odel$ t is a stranger to any idea o) genetic axis or deestructure The rhiHo*e is altogether di))erent. a *a and not a tracing@$ Fro* <illesDeleuHe and FNlix <uattari. A Thousand Plateaus %aitalis* and SchiHohrenia +London%ontinuu*. 200:-. $ B18$



J>2 3ac9ues Derrida +1C80B200:- ,as a French hilosoher ,ho is ,idelyregarded as the *ost i*ortant o) the ost*odernist hilosohers$ 5is ,or" has had anenor*ous i*act on hilosohy and literary theory since the 1C>0s$ 5is ,or" led to thetechni9ue o) ?deconstruction@. !y ,hich it is held that no text or idea can !e reduced to asingle *eaning. !ut rather that e'ery text can !e interreted in *any di))erent. and

contradictory. ,ays. thus denying that an authoritati'e *eaning can !e clai*ed )or anytext$jEd$ J>8 Di))Nrance is a ter* coined !y Derrida$ ts *eaning is co*lex. !ut essentiallyit re)ers to Derrida@s contention that ,ords are de)ined *ore !y the ,ay in ,hich theydistinguish a tye o) o!ect )ro* other o!ects. *ore than in ter*s o) ,hat they reresent$BEd$ J>: #artin 5eidegger. On Ti*e and eing +%hicago /ni'ersity o) %hicago Press.2002-$ J>; <il!ert Durand. The Anthroological Structures o) the *aginary +ris!aneoo*!ana Pu!lications. 1CCC-$ J>= Alexander Dugin. Sotsiologiia 'oo!raHheniia G'edenie ' stru"turnuiusotsiologiiu +Sociology o) the *agination ntroduction to Structural Sociology I#osco,. 2010-$ J>> <aston achelard +1:B1C=2- ,as a French hilosoher ,ho alied sychology and eiste*ology to the hilosohy o) science$ 5e ,as in)luential uon the ost*odernists$BEd$ J> Latin ?)ro* the o!ser'ed )acts@$BEd$ J>C The year 1C= *ar"ed a series o) in)luential Le)tB,ing rotests !y studentsand others throughout the ,orld. the *ost nota!le !eing in Paris. ,here the students ,ere oined in a stri"e !y the *aority o) the French ,or")orce$ Although these stri"es )ailed intheir stated o!ecti'es. in France and else,here it *ar"ed the *o*ent ,hen the traditionalsocial orders !egan to !e )orced to gi'e ,ay to *ore li!eral attitudes$BEd$ J0 %arl Sch*itt argued that. ,ith the extension o) Euroe throughout the ,orld'ia colonialis*. a glo!al social order had !een esta!lished. ,hich. )or the )irst ti*e. led tothe creation o) an international syste* o) la,. articularly in regard to *ilitary con)licts$5o,e'er. Sch*itt !elie'ed that this order is no, on the decline. and that the !irth o) a ne,glo!al order ,as ossi!ly i**inent$BEd$ J1 Alexander Dugin. #yslit@ rostranst'o* Osno'y geooliti"i +Thin"ingSatially The Origins o) <eoolitics I #osco,. 2000-$ (e, edition Sotsiologiia rostranst'a. Sotsiologiia 'oo!raHheniia G'edenie ' stru"turnuiu sotsiologiiu +Sociologyo) Sace. Sociology o) the *agination ntroduction to Structural Sociology I #osco,.2010-$ J2 Alain de enoist. Proti' li!eraliH*a$ J8 <ree" ?nation@. in the sense o) a co**unity o) eole ,ho all share aco**on heritage$BEd$ J: The %onser'ati'e Re'olution is a ter* )irst coined !y 5ugo 'on5o))*ansthal. ,hich has co*e to designate a loose con)ederation o) antiBli!eral <er*anthin"ers ,ho ,rote during the 6ei*ar Reu!lic$ There ,as a great di'ersity o) 'ie,s,ithin the ran"s o) the %onser'ati'e Re'olutionaries. !ut in general they oosed !othde*ocratic caitalis* and %o**unis* in )a'our o) a synthesis o) aristocratic traditionsand siritual 'alues ,ith socialis*$BEd$ J; Ada* #Wller +1>>CB12C- ,as a <er*an econo*ist ,ho oosed Ada*



S*ith@s li!eral theories. calling )or a return o) the i*ortance o) ethics and religion inecono*ic and social li)e$BEd$ J= 6ilhel* #Whl*ann +1C0:B1C- ,as a <er*an sociologist and anthroologist,ho ,or"ed on ethnological roects )or the (ational Socialist regi*e. !ut ,asreha!ilitated a)ter the ,ar$ n his ,ritings. he taught that an ethnic grou cannot !e de)ined

!y !lood relationshi. !ut only !y its cultural traditions and ethnograhic characteristics$BEd$ J> Richard Thurn,ald +1=CB1C;:- ,as an Austrian ethnologist ,ho is credited,ith )ounding the school o) ethnosociology$BEd$ J Le' <u*ile' +1C12B1CC2- ,as a So'iet anthroologist ,ho atte*ted toexlain ethnic di))erences through geological )actors. esecially in his !oo" Ethnogenesisand the ioshere +#osco, Progress Pu!lishers. 1CC0-$ 5e has !een 'ery in)luential on*odern Eurasianis*$ To ro'ide an exa*le o) this concet. <u*ile' held that the stee,as the ?acco**odating landscae@ )or the #ongols. and thus they ,ere una!le to li'eoutside o) it and did not ,ish to gi'e u their no*adic li)estyle$BEd$ JC ?LanguageBga*es@. according to 6ittgenstein. are )or*s o) language that areo))shoots o) language as it nor*ally exists. such as the language o) children. ,hich issi*ler than language roer$BEd$ JC0 <ree" ?cityBstate@$BEd$ JC1 Richard Thurn,ald. Die *enschliche <esellscha)t in ihren ethnoBsoHiologischen <rundlagen. 'ol$ 1 +erlin 6$ de <ruyter. 1C81-$ JC2 Alain de enoist. Gu de droite Anthologie criti9ue des idNes conte*oraines+Paris %oernic. 1C>>-$ JC8 Antonio <ra*sci +1C1B1C8>- ,as an talian %o**unist ,ho ,as i*risoned !y the Fascists$ 5e de'eloed the theory o) cultural hege*ony. ,hich +in !rie)- holds that a olitical grou cannot *aintain o,er ,ithout )irst ersuading the *e*!ers o) a societythat the ideas it roagates are the nor*al state o) a))airs. thus gi'ing itsel) legiti*acy$There)ore. control o'er the cultural aaratus o) a society is a rere9uisite )or holding o,er. rather than !eing so*ething ,hich )ollo,s a re'olution$ This idea has !een highlyin)luential on the Euroean (e, Right$BEd$ JC: Karl Poer. The Oen Society and ts Ene*ies. 2 'ols$ +London Routledge4 Kegan Paul. 1C:;-$ JC; Alexander Dugin. #a"si*al@nyi gu*aniH* +#osco, Russ"aia 'esch@. 2001-$ JC= Alexander Dugin. Filoso)iia oliti"i +#osco,. 200:-$ JC> 3eanBPaul Sartre. The Age o) Reason +(e, or" Al)red A$ Kno). 1C:>-$ JC Alexander Dugin. #a"si*al@nyi gu*aniH*$ JCC #artin 5eidegger. On Ti*e and eing$ J100 <er*an ?!eing@$BEd$ J101 <er*an ?there@$BEd$ J102 5er!ert Sencer +120B1C08- ,as a theorist o) e'olution ,ho ,as aconte*orary o) Dar,in$ t ,as he ,ho coined the hrase ?sur'i'al o) the )ittest@ in his1=: !oo". Princiles o) iology. to descri!e Dar,in@s idea o) natural selection$ Dar,inhi*sel) later adoted Sencer@s ter*$ Sencer also alied Dar,in@s theories to the socialreal*. so*ething Dar,in ne'er did$BEd$ J108 5er!ert Sencer. Essays. Scienti)ic. Political. and Seculati'e. 8 'ols$ +(e,or" D$ Aleton. 1C1-$ J10: ?<olden !illion@ is a ter* used in Russia to descri!e the !elie) that a



relati'ely s*all ercentage o) the ,orld@s oulation. located in the ,ealthiest nations o)the 6est. consu*e the largest ercentage o) the ,orld@s resources$BEd$ J10; Ayn Rand +1C0;B1C2- ,as a RussianBA*erican no'elist and hilosoher,ho ro*oted an extre*e )or* o) indi'idualist caitalis* ,hich she ter*ed O!ecti'is*$BEd$

J10= Alan <reensan +!$ 1C2=- ,as the %hair*an o) the /nited States FederalReser'e )ro* 1C> until 200=$ eginning in the 1C=0s. <reensan !eca*e art o) Rand@sinner circle and ,as one o) the *ost ro*inent O!ecti'ists$ 6hile initially 9uite oular.*any o) his olicies ha'e co*e under criticis*$ #any clai* that he assisted trends ,hichled to the 200 su!ri*e *ortgage crisis in the /nited States. ,hich in turn reciitated theglo!al )inancial crisis$BEd$ J10> Ayn Rand. %aitalis* The /n"no,n deal +(e, or" (e, A*ericanLi!rary. 1C==-$BEd$ J10 #ax 6e!er +1=:B1C20- ,as a <er*an ,ho is considered one o) the)ounders o) sociology$ 5is rincial ,or" is The Protestant Ethic and the Sirit o)%aitalis*$BEd$ J10C Karl #arx and Friedrich Engels. The %o**unist #ani)esto A #odernEdition +(e, or" Gerso. 1CC-$ J110 Friedrich (ietHsche. Thus So"e arathustra +%a*!ridge %a*!ridge/ni'ersity Press. 200=-. $ =$ J111 Alexander Dugin. %het'ertaia olitiches"aia teoriia Alain de enoist. Proti'li!eraliH*a K chet'ertoi olitiches"oi teorii$ J112 <regory ateson +1C0:B1C0- ,as an English anthroologist andcy!erneticist ,hose ,or" ranged o'er a ,ide 'ariety o) )ields$ n his later years. heatte*ted to create a ?*etaBscience@ o) eiste*ology$BEd$ J118 <regory ateson. #ind and (ature A (ecessary /nity +(e, or" Dutton.1C>C-$ J11: #arcel #auss +1>2B1C;0- ,as a sociologist ,hose ,or" also had asigni)icant i*act on anthroology. articularly %laude LN'iBStrauss$BEd$ J11; 5enri 5u!ert and #arcel #auss. Sacri)ice ts (ature and Function +%hicago%hicago /ni'ersity Press. 1C=:-$ J11= #arcel #auss. The <i)t For*s and Functions o) Exchange in ArchaicSocieties +(e, or" (orton. 1C=>-$ J11> n ancient Russian *ythology. the li"ho ,as a creature ,hich e*!odiedcala*ities and *is)ortune$ The ,ord itsel) is the e9ui'alent o) ?e'il@. and is ety*ologicallyrelated to lishnii. that is. ?excessi'e@$ Dugin also uses the original *eaning o) the ter*li"h'a. an archaic ,ord ,hich signi)ies ?usury@. and is also lin"ed to li"ho$BEd$ J11 The otlatch is a custo* racticed !y 'arious (ati'e A*erican tri!es in (orth A*erica. in site o) e))orts !y the %anadian and A*erican go'ern*ents to !an itduring the (ineteenth and early T,entieth centuries$BEd$ J11C Lucien LN'yBrWhl +1;>B1C8C- ,as a French hilosoher ,ho osited thatthere ,ere t,o !asic *entalities in hu*anity ?ri*iti'e@ and ?6estern@. ,ith ane'olutionary chain !et,een the*$BEd$ J120 Lucien LN'yBrWhl. Per'o!ytnoe *yshlenie Psi"hologiia *yshleniia+#osco, #</. 1C0-$ J121 %laude LN'iBStrauss +1C0B200C- ,as the *ost in)luential anthroologist o)the T,entieth century$BEd$



J122 %laude LN'iBStrauss. The Sa'age #ind +%hicago %hicago /ni'ersity Press.1C==-$ J128 FranH oas +1;B1C:2- ,as an A*erican anthroologist ,ho laid theground,or" )or *odern anthroology$BEd$ J12: (i"olai Danile's"y +122B1;- ,as a Russian hilosoher ,ho roosed a

cyclical cycle in the li)e o) ci'ilisatons. si*ilar to the idea de'eloed later !y Sengler$ J12; Ernst 3Wnger +1C;B1CC- ,as one o) the *ost ro*inent o) the <er*an%onser'ati'e Re'olutionaries. !ut that ,as only one hase in a long and 'aried career$ 5e'olunteered )or and )ought in the <er*an Ar*y throughout the First 6orld 6ar. and ,asa,arded the highest decoration. the Pour le #Nrite. )or his ser'ice$ A)ter the ,ar. he ,rote*any !oo"s and no'els. ,as acti'e in <er*an olitics. exeri*ented ,ith sychedelicdrugs. and tra'elled the ,orld$ 5e re*ained a*!i'alent a!out (ational Socialis* at )irst. !ut ne'er oined the Party. and he had turned against the (aHis !y the late 1C80s$ 5ereoined the 6ehr*acht at the out!rea" o) ,ar. ho,e'er. and re*ained in Paris as a catain.,here he sent *ore ti*e ,ith Picasso and %octeau than en)orcing the occuation$ 5iso!ections to the (aHis ,ere in)luential uon the *e*!ers o) the Stau))en!erg lot toassassinate 5itler in 3uly 1C::. ,hich led to his dis*issal )ro* the 6ehr*acht$ A)ter the,ar. 3Wnger@s olitical 'ie,s gradually *o'ed to,ard a sort o) aristocratic anarchis*$BEd$ J12= Arnold 3$ Toyn!ee +1CB1C>;- ,as a ritish historian ,ho ,rote a 12B'olu*e study o) the cycles o) ci'ilisations. A Study o) 5istory. !et,een 1C8: and 1C=1$BEd$ J12> <u*ile' sa, assionarity as the le'el o) 'itality in a gi'en ethnic grou orci'ilisation. a tye o) energy ,hich ,ould gradually increase until reaching its ea". at,hich ti*e the grou ,ould *a"e its greatest achie'e*ents. )ollo,ed !y a slo, e!!$ 5esa, Euroean ci'ilisation as !eing at its lo, oint. and Ara! ci'ilisation as !eing 'ery highin assionarity$BEd$ J12 Piotr SHto*"a. The Sociology o) Social %hange +Ox)ord lac",ell. 1CC:-$ J12C The %hu"chi eole inha!it the %hu"chi Peninsula near the ering Sea$BEd$ J180 ?6hat i) so*e day or night a de*on ,ere to steal into your loneliestloneliness and say to you This li)e as you no, li'e it and ha'e li'ed it you ,ill ha'e toli'e once again and innu*era!le ti*es again and there ,ill !e nothing ne, in it. !ut e'ery ain and e'ery oy and e'ery thought and sigh and e'erything unsea"a!ly s*all or great inyour li)e *ust return to you. all in the sa*e succession and se9uenceU@ Fro* Friedrich (ietHsche. The <ay Science +%a*!ridge %a*!ridge /ni'ersity Press. 2001-. $ 1C:$ Thisis one o) (ietHsche@s central ideas$BEd$ J181 n (ietHsche@s understanding o) the ter*. the Aollonian is that ,hich isrelated to reason and drea*s$ The Dionysian is related to intoxication and ecstasy$BEd$ J182 The </Lag ,as an acrony* )or the *assi'e syste* o) )orced la!our ca*sthat existed in the So'iet /nion. in ,hich conditions ,ere extre*ely harsh and *any didnot sur'i'e$ They reached their ea" under Stalin. ,hen !y 1C;8 o'er t,o *illion So'ietcitiHens ,ere interned in </Lags$ The </Lags ,ere shut do,n !y 1C=0$BEd$ J188 Arthur #oeller 'an den ruc". <er*any@s Third E*ire +London Ar"tos.2012-$ J18: n his Philosohy o) 5istory. 5egel ostulates that there is a sirit !ehindci'ilisations ,hich *ani)ests itsel) through the dialectical rocess o) history$ 5e oncere)erred to (aoleon as the ?,orld sirit on horse!ac"@$BEd$ J18; 3oachi* o) Fiore +118;B1202- ,as an talian riest ,ho ,as the )ounder o)the *onastic order o) San <io'anni$ 5e de'eloed a theory that history ,as structured



according to the %hristian Trinity. consisting o) the Age o) the Father. the Age o) the Sonand the Age o) the 5oly Sirit. ,hich he !elie'ed ,ould !egin in 12=0$ n this Age. hetaught. hu*anity ,ould !e a!le to co**une directly ,ith <od. rendering the structure o)the %hurch o!solete$ 5is ideas ,ere conde*ned !y the %hurch and are still consideredheretical today$BEd$

J18= runo Latour +!$ 1C:>- is a French anthroologist ,ho has aliedanthroology and sociology to the study o) science$ Dugin is re)erring to his !oo" 6e 5a'e (e'er een #odern +%a*!ridge 5ar'ard /ni'ersity Press. 1CC8-$ n it. he argues thatancient eoles *ade no distinction !et,een society and the natural ,orld. unli"e in the*odern ,orld$BEd$ J18> <eorges Du*NHil +1CB1C=- ,as a French hilologist !est "no,n as a ioneer in *ythograhy$ 5e also studied the nature o) so'ereignty in ancient ndoBEuroean ci'ilisations. ,hich led hi* to ostulate the Tri)unctional 5yothesis na*ely.that ndoBEuroean culture had de'eloed along a triartite structure o) ,arriors. riestsand )ar*ers$ 5e !elie'ed that this ,as the origin o) !oth the 5indu caste syste* and the)eudal syste* in #edie'al Euroe$BEd$ J18 Euhe*eris* is na*ed a)ter the FourthBcentury %E <ree" *ythograherEuhe*erus. ,ho clai*ed that the <ree" gods had their origin in the oral trans*ission o)tales that ,ere originally a!out great hu*an !eings. !ut ,hich o'er ti*e !eca*e ele'atedto the status o) gods$ Those ,ho )ollo, euhe*eris* li"e,ise !elie'e that *yths and tales)ro* the sacred traditions ha'e their origin in actual historical e'ents. al!eit ela!orateduon$ Du*NHil instead sa, the* as sy*!olic reresentations o) socioolitical realities$BEd$ J18C <il!ert Durand +!$ 1C21- is a French ro)essor o) hilosohy ,ho secialisesin sy*!olic anthroology and the i*agination$ 5e is a *e*!er o) the Eranos grou and,or"ed ,ith %$ <$ 3ung. <aston achelard and 5enry %or!in$ 5e has theorised that there isa corresondence !et,een hysiology and the structure o) society$BEd$ J1:0 Occasionalist theory. ,as originally 9uite ro*inent in sla*. and ,as latertrans*itted to %hristian theology and ,as also ta"en u !y Descartes and his )ollo,ers$ nit. all e'ents are said to ha'e their ulti*ate cause in <od. since *atter is incaa!le o)causing the*$ The theory also *aintains that <od is rational and that the e'ents he causesthere)ore ha'e a logical se9uence$BEd$ J1:1 (i"olai erdyae' +1>:B1C:- ,as an in)luential Russian *illenarian *ysticand olitical hilosoher$ 5e ,as originally a %o**unist. !ut re)used to suort theRussian Re'olution o) 1C1> due to his o!ection to the %o**unists@ authoritarianis* andatheis*$ 5e ,as exelled )ro* the So'iet /nion in 1C22 and li'ed the rest o) his li)e inParis$ n his !oo" The End o) Our Ti*e +1C2:-. he rohesied the i**inent end o)li!eralis* and hu*anis*. and the return o) ,hat he ter*ed a (e, #iddle Ages. ,hich,ould include a return to ci'lisations !ased uon religion and *ysticis*$BEd$ J1:2 3ohn #aynard Keynes +18B1C:=- ,as a ritish econo*ist ,hose ideasregarding the the ossi!ilities o) the )ree *ar"et and !usiness cycles ha'e !eenextraordinarily in)luential$BEd$ J1:8 Traiectu* ,as the Ro*an na*e )or ,hat is today the city o) /trecht in the (etherlands. so na*ed !ecause it ,as a lace ,here it ,as ossi!le to cross the Rhine$BEd$ J1:: 3ohn #earshei*er +!$ 1C:>- is an A*erican olitical scientist$ 5e is erhas !estB"no,n )or ha'ing coBauthored the !oo" The srael Lo!!y and /$S$ Foreign Policy,ith Stehen 6alt in 200>. ,hich detailed the in)luence o) secial interest grous thatsuort sraeli olicies on the /S go'ern*ent$BEd$



J1:; The Thirty ears@ 6ar ended ,ith the Peace o) 6esthalia in 1=:. in ,hichthe nations o) Euroe recognised each others@ territorial integrity$ So*e historians considerit to ha'e !een the )irst ste in the de'elo*ent o) the *odernBday syste* o) internationalrelations$BEd$ J1:= Latin ?in a strict sense@$BEd$

J1:> The %ouncil on Foreign Relations +%FR- is a ri'atelyBo,ned olitical thin"tan" in the /nited States. ,hich has its origins in the eace rocess at the end o) the First6orld 6ar$ The %FR. it itsel) clai*s. see"s to in)luence glo!al olitics in a direction that ro'ides eace)ul con)lict resolutions and *ultilateralis*$<eorge Soros +!$ 1C80- is anA*erican !illionaire ,ho uses his ,ealth to ro*ote li!eral causes around the ,orld$ 5e)unded *any dissident grous in Eastern Euroe and the /SSR during the %old 6ar. andcontinues to suort de*ocratic causes there$ %ritics ha'e said that Soros is *erely actingas an agent o) A*erican )oreign olicy interests$BEd$ J1: The %olour Re'olutions ,as a ter* coined !y the international *edia todescri!e 'arious urisings that too" lace in the nations o) the )or*er So'iet /nion and theal"ans during the early 2000s. and later )or 'arious #iddle Eastern re'olutions as ,ell$ neach case. *ass de*onstrations o) a eace)ul nature succeeded in o'erthro,ing leaders ercei'ed as authoritarian. such as in Ser!ia. <eorgia and /"raine$ #any o) these re'olts,ere associated ,ith a seci)ic colour +such as the Orange Re'olution in /"raine-. hencethe na*e$ Oonents ha'e o)ten clai*ed that these re'olutions ,ere !ac"ed !y the /Sgo'ern*ent or the Soros Foundation$BEd$ J1:C #ani)est Destiny ,as a ter* coined !y an A*erican ournalist. 3ohn L$O@Sulli'an. in 1:; in an article ,hich called )or the annexation o) the thenBindeendentterritories o) Texas and Oregon$ The ter* re)ers to the !elie) that it ,as the natural destinyo) the /nited States to exand across the (orth A*erican continent$ The ter* ,as ic"edu !y those ,ho shared O@Sulli'an@s 'ie,. and ,as used !y De*ocrats to usti)y the 1:=B: #exicanBA*erican 6ar$BEd$ J1;0 The #onroe Doctrine ,as roclai*ed !y /S President 3a*es #onroe in128. ust a)ter *ost o) the nations o) Latin A*erica had roclai*ed their indeendence)ro* Sain$ Fearing that other colonial o,ers *ight try to *o'e in. #onroe declared thatthe /nited States ,ould regard any Euroean inter'ention in the A*erican he*ishere asan act o) aggression against itsel)$ President Theodore Roose'elt added a corollary in 1C0:.stating that the /S also reser'es the right to inter'ene in the case o) ?,rongdoing@ !y anyLatin A*erican go'ern*ent$ The #onroe Doctrine has continued to !e in'o"ed !y the /Su to the 1C0s. ,hen it ,as used to usti)y A*erican inter'ention in (icaragua$BEd$ J1;1 #ichael 5ardt and Antonio (egri. E*ire +%a*!ridge 5ar'ard /ni'ersityPress. 2000-$ n the !oo" it is ostulated that the ,orld is in the rocess o) *o'ing a,ay)ro* the traditional relations !et,een 'arious nationBstate and into a ne, ,orld do*inated !y the /nited States and (ATO. as ,ell as *ultinational cororations. ,ith e'erything elsein the ,orld in a su!ser'ient relationshi to the*$BEd$ J1;2 n genetic engineering. a chi*era is a genetic hy!rid !et,een ani*al andhu*an D(A$BEd$ J1;8 Stehen R$ #ann. %haos Theory and Strategic Thought.U Para*eters+Autu*n 1CC2-. a'aila!le at ,,,$dtic$*ilVcgiB!inV<etTRDoc7ADADA;2821$BEd$ J1;: 5u!ert GNdrine +!$ 1C:>- is a French olitician o) the Socialist Party$ Anoonent o) the unilateral action o) the /nited States in ra9. he oularised the ter*?hyero,er@ to descri!e the unrecedented in)luence o) the /S in the ,orld in the T,entyB



)irst century$BEd$ J1;; The Proect )or the (e, A*erican %entury ,as a ri'ate institute esta!lishedin 1CC> ,hich ser'ed as a *outhiece )or neoconser'ati'e thought until it ,as dis!anded in200=$ The Proect sought to de'elo ,ays to *aintain and extend A*erican sure*acy intothe T,entyB)irst century. and *any o) its *e*!ers ,ere either art o) or in)luential uon

the ad*inistration o) President <eorge 6$ ush$BEd$ J1;= Tho*as 5o!!es +1;B1=>C- ,as an English olitical hilosoher ,ho laid*any o) the theoretical )oundations )or *odern li!eral societies$ n his !oo" Le'iathan+1=;1-. the ?,ar o) all against all@ ,ould !e the condition o) the hu*an race in a theoretical,orld ,ithout any )or* o) go'ern*ent$BEd$ J1;> Richard ($ 5aass +!$ 1C;1- is an A*erican dilo*at and has !een thePresident o) the %ouncil on Foreign Relations since 2008$ 5e ser'ed as an ad'isor toPresident <eorge 5$ 6$ ush during the Persian <ul) 6ar o) 1CC1$ 5e descri!ed his 'ie,o) nonBolarity in an essay. ?The Age o) (onolarity 6hat 6ill Follo, /$S$ Do*[email protected] Foreign A))airs +#ayV3une 200-$BEd$ J1; Lenin outlined his concet o) i*erialis* in his !oo" *erialis*. the5ighest Stage o) %aitalis* +1C1>-. in ,hich he theorised that caitalist nations e'entuallyexhaust the ossi!ilities )or econo*ic gro,th in their o,n lands and ,ill ine'ita!ly resortto ,ar and colonialis* to secure additional resources )or continued gro,th$BEd$

J1;C oli'arianis* re)ers to olitical ideologies deri'ed )ro* the doctrines o)Sk*on olk'ar. the (ineteenthBcentury GeneHuelan <eneral ,ho )ought )or theindeendence o) the Latin A*erican colonies )ro* Sain$ n today@s ,orld this re)ers to thedesire )or a Latin A*erican union dedicated to de)ending the interests o) all eoles on thecontinent$ t is esecially in)luential in 5ugo %hZ'eH@s GeneHuela$BEd$ J1=0 <illes DeleuHe and FNlix <uattari. AntiBOedius %aitalis* andSchiHohrenia +(e, or" Penguin oo"s. 200C-$BEd$ J1=1 Sy Kids 2 The sland o) Lost Drea*s ,as released in 2002. directed !y theA*erican director. Ro!ert RodrigueH$BEd$ J1=2 %lassical <ree" ?nature@$BEd$ J1=8 Karl #annhei* +1C8B1C:>- ,as a 5ungarian sociologist ,hose *osti*ortant ,or" ,as deology and /toia +1C8=-$ 5ere Dugin is re)erring to his !oo"%onser'atis* A %ontri!ution to the Sociology o) Kno,ledge +(e, or" Routledge 4Kegan Paul. 1C=-. although it should !e noted that #annhei* used the ter*?traditionalis*@ a)ter #ax 6e!er. in the sense o) one ,ho clings to the custo*s esta!lishedin re'ious ti*es ,ithin one@s o,n society. and not in the sense o) <uNnon$BEd$ J1=: saac (e,ton !elie'ed that the hysical la,s he had unco'ered re'ealed the*echanical er)ection o) the ,or"ings o) the uni'erse to !e a"in to a ,atch*a"er. ,hereinthe ,atch*a"er is <od$ 5o,e'er. (e,ton also !elie'ed that. li"e a ,atch*a"er. <od ,as)orced to inter'ene in the uni'erse and tin"er ,ith the *echanis* )ro* ti*e to ti*e toensure that it continued oerating in good ,or"ing order$BEd$ J1=; The #orning o) the #agicians +(e, or" Stein 4 Day. 1C=:-$ This is the !oo" ,hich )irst ga'e rise to *any o) the )alse *yths ,hich ersist today a!out a suosed?occult consiracy@ at the heart o) (ational Socialis*$BEd$ J1== The #orning o) the #agicians. $ 10$BEd$ J1=> The original ,ord used !y Dugin in Russian. mpq. also has theconnotation o) ?*oral@. ?ecclesiastical@. ?noetic@ and so on$BEd$ J1= The Old elie'ers are a sect o) the Russian Orthodox %hurch ,hich



under,ent a schis* )ro* the *ain !ranch o) the %hurch in 1===. a)ter its adherentso!ected to certain re)or*s !y the Patriarch o) the ti*e$BEd$

J1=C n Russian. the root o) the ,ord ?!uc",heat@ sounds si*ilar to the root )or?sin@$BEd$ J1>0 The Fedoseyans ,ere a sect o) the Old elie'ers that e*erged in Russia in

the Eighteenth century. )a'ouring strict asceticis* and a!olishing the institution o)*arriage$BEd$ J1>1 Ed*und ur"e +1>2CB1>C>- ,as an rish olitician and hilosoher ,ho satin the 5ouse o) %o**ons as a *e*!er o) the 6hig arty$ 5e ,as oosed to de*ocracyand the French Re'olution. although he did !elie'e in the i*ortance o) reresentati'ego'ern*ent and suorted the cause o) the A*erican Re'olution$ 5e ,as also in'ol'ed )or*any years in addressing inustices eretrated !y the ritish East ndia %o*any inndia$BEd$ J1>2 The 3aco!in %lu! ,as the *ost o,er)ul grou a*ong the Frenchre'olutionaries in the years i**ediately )ollo,ing the 1>C Re'olution$ Ro!esierre andthose around hi* ,ho ,ere resonsi!le )or the *urderous Reign o) Terror o) the 1>C0s,ere all 3aco!ins$BEd$ J1>8 3Wrgen 5a!er*as +!$ 1C2C- is a <er*an #arxist hilosoher$BEd$ J1>: 3Wrgen 5a!er*as. ?#odernity An nco*lete Proect@. in #auriHio Passerind@EntrQ'es and Seyla enha!i! +eds$-. 5a!er*as and the /n)inished Proect o) #odernity%ritical Essays on the Philosohical Discourse o) #odernity +%a*!ridge #T Press.1CC>-. $ 8B;;$ +This 9uote does not exist in the English 'ersion o) the essay$BEd$- J1>; Arthur #oeller 'an den ruc". <er*any@s Third E*ire$ J1>= #artin u!er +1>B1C=;- ,as an Austrian 3e, ,ho. as a ionist. later*o'ed to srael$ 5e is !estB"no,n )or ha'ing )or*ulated a )or* o) 3e,ish existentialis*$BEd$ J1>> n Russian. roughly. ?the onBorBalongsideBlaced@$ J1> The ?society o) the sectacle@ is a ter* coined !y <uy De!ord +1C81B1CC:-. aFrench #arxist hilosoher and the )ounder o) the anarchist Situationist nternational$ Thesectacle. as descri!ed in his rincial ,or". The Society o) the Sectacle. is one o) the*eans !y ,hich the caitalist esta!lish*ent *aintains its authority in the *odern ,orld Ina*ely. !y reducing all genuine hu*an exeriences to reresentational i*ages in the *ass*edia. thus allo,ing the o,ersBthatB!e to deter*ine ho, indi'iduals exerience reality$The Situationists ,ere 'ery in)luential in the *ass rotests and stri"es in France in 1C=$BEd$ J1>C Fyodor Dostoe's"y. De*ons +%a*!ridge Penguin %lassics. 2012-$BEd$ J10 (ordBOst is a oular Russian *usical that. in art. cele!rates the triu*h o)So'iet soldiers in the Second 6orld 6ar$ On 28 Octo!er 2002. a grou o) %hechen suicideterrorists stor*ed a #osco, theatre during a er)or*ance o) the *usical and too" theentire audience and co*any hostage$ They stando)) continued )or three days until Russian)orces attac"ed the theatre. )irst u*ing in toxic gas to disa!le the terrorists$ Although*ost o) the terrorists ,ere "illed or catured during the attac". so*e o) the hostages ,ereexecuted !y the terrorists. !ut *ost ,ere "illed !y the gas. and *ore than 180 hostages diedin all$BEd$ J11 <eorges Sorel +1:>B1C22- ,as a French hilosoher ,ho !egan as a#arxist and later de'eloed Re'olutionary Syndicalis*$ 5e ad'ocated the use o) *yth andorganised 'iolence in re'olutionary *o'e*ents$ 5e ,as in)luential uon !oth the



%o**unist and Fascist *o'e*ents$BEd$ J12 <eorges Sorel. Re)lections on Giolence +%a*!ridge %a*!ridge /ni'ersityPress. 1CCC-$ J18 <regor Strasser +1C2B1C8:- ,as an early leader o) the (ational Socialist*o'e*ent in <er*any ,ho e*hasised the ele*ent o) socialis* *ore strongly than did

5itler$ Percei'ed as a ri'al to 5itler@s authority. he ,as executed during the in)a*ous?(ight o) the Long Kni'es@ in 3une 1C8:$ 5is !rother Otto atte*ted to re'i'e the notion o) a ?Le)tB,ing (ational Socialis*@ in the ostB,ar era$BEd$ J1: /nited Russia is a centreBRight arty that ,as )ounded in Russia in 2001$ thas al,ays !een strongly suorti'e o) Gladi*ir Putin. and Putin ,as the arty@s leaderduring the eriod 200B2012$ As o) this ,riting +2012-. /nited Russia is the largest arty inthe country$BEd$ J1; RenN <uNnon. East and 6est +5illsdale. (e, or" Sohia Perennis. 2001-$+First u!lished in 1C2:. it is considered the )irst )ull )or*ulation o) <uNnon@s doctrines$BEd$- J1= Ro*an 3a"o!son +1C=B1C2- ,as a Russian linguist ,ho ,as one o) the)ounders o) ,hat ca*e to !e called Structuralis*$ 5e )led the So'iet /nion ust rior to theSecond 6orld 6ar and li'ed )or the re*ainder o) his li)e in the /nited States$ According tothe original )ootnote. Dugin is re)erring to his !oo" Selected 6ritings. 'ol$ > %ontri!utionsto %o*arati'e #ythology +(e, or" #outon. 1C;-$BEd$ J1> (i"olai Tru!ets"oy. The 5eritage o) <enghis Khan +#osco,. 2000-$ J1 Also ?ele'ating@ and ?raising@$BEd$ J1C Le,is 5enry #organ +11B11- ,as a la,yer ,ho also conducted researchinto ethnology$ 5e !eca*e )ascinated ,ith the (ati'e A*ericans and ,as initiated into thero9uois tri!e$ n his !oo" Syste*s o) %onsanguinity and A))inity o) the 5u*an Fa*ily. heco*ared his studies o) the (ati'e A*ericans ,ith the tri!al li)e o) other cultures. andde'eloed his theory o) the /nity o) Origin o) #an"ind. in ,hich he !elie'ed he hadidenti)ied the uni'ersal ri*ordial social structure o) hu*anity$ 5e also ca*e to !elie'e inthe necessity )or continual rogress in societies in order )or the* to sur'i'e. ,hich heidenti)ied in *odern ti*es ,ith technological rogress. as descri!ed in his Ancient Society+(e, or" 5enry 5olt 4 %o$. 1>>-$ This is the !oo" cited !y Dugin in his original)ootnote$ #arx and Engels ,ere hea'ily reliant on #organ@s ,or" ,hen discussing tri!alsocieties and social rogress in their o,n theories$BEd$ J1C0 Friedrich Engels. The Origins o) the Fa*ily. Pri'ate Proerty. and the State.in the Light o) the Researches o) Le,is 5$ #organ +(e, or" nternational Pu!lishers.1C>2-$ J1C1 Paul Ricoeur$ 5er*eneutics and Psychoanalysis Religion and elie)+#osco,. 1CC=-$ J1C2 Karl #arx. %aital +London Penguin oo"s. 1C=-$ J1C8 Dugin uses the ter* narodni" as synony*ous ,ith the <er*an ter* 'ol". or eoles$BEd$ J1C: Sig*und Freund. The nterretation o) Drea*s +Ox)ord Ox)ord /ni'ersityPress. 1CCC-$ +Freud !elie'ed that the urose o) drea*s ,as to interret one@s unconsciousdesires in sy*!olic or allegorical )or*$BEd$- J1C; 5ala"hah re)ers to the totality o) 3e,ish la,$BEd$ J1C= 3eanB3ac9ues Rousseau. The Social %ontract and Other Later Political6ritings +%a*!ridge %a*!ridge /ni'ersity Press. 1CC>-$



J1C> Sa*uel 5untington +1C2>B200- ,as an A*erican olitical scientist ,ho !eca*e in)a*ous )or ser'ing as an ad'isor to authoritarian regi*es. such as South A)rica inthe 1C0s$ 5e )a*ously ostulated that nations in the rocess o) transitioning into*odernity *ust !e cautious a!out not introducing de*ocracy too 9uic"ly into theirsocieties. and that reressi'e *easures can actually !e necessary and !ene)icial in the short

ter*$ #ore recently. he !eca*e ,ellB"no,n )or his 1CC8 essay ?The %lash o) %i'iliHations@ u!lished in Foreign A))airs. ,hich ,as later exanded into a !oo" o) the sa*e na*e. in,hich he theoriHed that the changing ,orld order )ollo,ing the collase o) %o**unis*,ould !e de)ined !y con)licts !et,een cultural !locs. such as the 6est and the sla*ic,orld$BEd$ J1C 3ere*y entha* +1>:B1:2- ,as an English urist. social re)or*er and/tilitarian hilosoher$BEd$ J1CC Tho*as P$ #$ arnett +!$ 1C=2- is an A*erican geostrategist ,ho ,as,or"ed )or the /S (a'y and the Deart*ent o) De)ense$ Dugin is re)erring to his !oo" ThePentagon@s (e, #a 6ar and Peace in the T,entyB)irst %entury +(e, or" <$ P$Putna*@s Sons. 200:-. and its se9uels$BEd$ J200 Tho*as P$ #$ arnett. The Pentagon@s (e, #a 6ar and Peace in theT,entyB)irst %entury$ J201 Dugin discusses this at length in %hater Eight$BEd$ J202 %arl Sch*itt$ Gl"errechtliche grossrau*ordnung *it inter'entions'er!ot )Wr rau*)re*de *chte Ein !eitrag Hu* reichs!egri)) i* 'l"errecht +erlin Dun"er and5u*!olt. 1CC1-$ J208 Friedrich 'on List +1>CB1:=- ,as a <er*an hilosoher and econo*ist$ nhis o,n )ootnote. Dugin re)erences Friedrich 'on List. (ational Syste* o) PoliticalEcono*y +#osco,. 200;-$ Gon List has ne'er !een translated into English$ BEd$ J20: The A)rican /nion ,as esta!lished in 2002 and consists o) ;: A)ricannations. and is an atte*t to organise a united )ront a*ong the 'arious countries toaddresses ro!le*s that are seci)ic to their continent$BEd$ J20; Euroregions are those areas ,hich extend o'er the territory o) se'eraldi))erent so'ereign states ,ho !order uon each other$ Euroregions allo, )or the citiHens o) these regions to address co**on ro!le*s. although their o,er is restricted to the localle'el and ha'e no national o,er$BEd$

J20= First coined in its *odern usage !y Le,is #u*)ord in his Technics and%i'iliHation +1C8:-. the ter* re)ers to a theoretical uni)ied nation consisting o) all thecountries o) the ,orld$BEd$ J20> Anthony <iddens +!$ 1C8- is a ritish sociologist$ 5e en'isions the Third6ay as a ostB#arxist heno*enon ,hich ,ill deal ,ith the e))ects o) glo!alisation.changes in ersonal li)e ,rought !y *odernity and ost*odernity. and hu*anity@sconnection to nature$ 5e outlines these ideas in a nu*!er o) !oo"s. esecially The Third6ay +%a*!ridge Polity. 1CC-$BEd$

J20 Euroco**unis* ,as a ter* coined in the 1C>0s to descri!e an atte*t tode'elo a )or* o) %o**unis* seci)ically suited )or 6estern Euroean nations. and notdeendent on align*ent ,ith the So'iet /nion$BEd$ J20C Karl Kauts"y +1;:B1C8- ,as a %HechB<er*an #arxist hilosoher ,ho,as the leading Euroean #arxist theoretician !et,een the death o) Engels and the RussianRe'olution$ 5e ,as an oonent o) the olshe'i" re'olution. clai*ing that Lenin ,asatte*ting to i*ose re)or*s on Russia )or ,hich it did not ha'e the correct econo*ic or



social !asis$BEd$ J210 3osN #anuel arroso +!$ 1C;=- ,as the Pri*e #inister o) Portugal !et,een2002 and 200:. and !eca*e President o) the Euroean %o**ission in 200: +and stilloccuies this osition. as o) 2012-$ During the 1C>0s. arroso ,as an outso"en #aoist. !ut !y the 1C0s had *o'ed to the Right$BEd$

J211 Futuris* ,as an talian art *o'e*ent ,hich ,as )ounded !y the ,riter F$ T$#arinetti in 1C0C$ Futuris* loathed anything con'entional or traditional. and e*!racedseed. technology. youth)ulness and 'iolence. as ,ell as talian nationalis*$ AlthoughFuturis* had already reached its aex !y 1C1. #arinetti hi*sel) !eca*e an ardent Fascist.and atte*ted. unsuccess)ully. to con'ince #ussolini that Futuris* should !eco*e theo))icial art o) Fascis*$ #arinetti continued to nurse such a*!itions. !y !ringing Futuris*closer to *ainstrea* talian culture. until the late 1C80s. ,hen Fascis*. )ollo,ing <er*an (ational Socialis*. ulti*ately conde*ned all #odernist art as degenerate$BEd$ J212 The Reu!!lica Sociale taliana. also so*eti*es "no,n as the Sal Reu!licdue to its !eing head9uartered there. ,as the go'ern*ent o) Fascist exiles ,hich ,as set uin northern taly )ollo,ing the cou against #ussolini in 3uly 1C:8$ Once rescued !y the<er*ans and instated as its head o) state. #ussolini returned to his socialist roots. and saidthat he had !een re'ented )ro* realising the genuine Fascist re'olution !y oliticalcontingencies. and ledged to create a ne, Fascist state that ,as *uch *ore socialist innature$ 5e clai*ed to ad'ocate ,or"ers@ rights. and ,hile the original Fascist regi*e hadde)ended ri'ate roerty. he no, nationalised all co*anies ,ithin his shere o)in)luence$BEd$ J218 S*ena 'e"h +%hange o) Land*ar"s- ,as a collection o) articles u!lished !y/strialo' in 1C21. stating the !asic rinciles o) (ational olshe'is*$BEd$ J21: Ollanta 5u*ala +!$ 1C=2- is the leader o) the Peru'ian (ationalist Party$ 5e,as elected President o) Peru in 3uly 2011$BEd$ J21; n hilosohy. it re)ers to an idea that is uni9ue and cannot !e included in a,ider concet$BEd$ J21= The a'arian Social Reu!lic ,as a shortBli'ed atte*t to esta!lish a So'ietstate in a'aria. <er*any$ For*ed on = Aril 1C1C. it lasted )or slightly less than a *onth.,hen ele*ents o) the <er*an Ar*y and the ara*ilitary Frei"ors entered #unich on 8#ay and de)eated the %o**unists$BEd$ J21> Latin ?a thing that is essential@$BEd$ J21 #arcel #auss +1>2B1C;0- ,as an in)luential French sociologist$ n his 1C28 !oo" The <i)t. he studied archaic societies and disco'ered that their econo*ies ,ere !asedon a rincile o) recirocal exchange. rather than ,ealth accu*ulation as in *odernsocieties$BEd$ J21C #ichel Foucault. 5istory o) #adness +London Routledge. 200=-$BEd$ J220 #ichel Foucault. The irth o) the %linic +(e, or" Pantheon oo"s.1C>8-$BEd$ J221 Paul Feyera!end +1C2:B1CC:- and Tho*as S$ Kuhn +1C22B1CC=- ,ere !oth hilosohers o) science ,ho argued against the notion that *odern science reresented a)or* o) o!ecti'e truth. )ree )ro* ideological or other reudices$BEd$ J222 Presu*a!ly. this is a re)erence to the 6orld Social Foru*. an antiBglo!alistorganisation ,hich had its )ounding *eeting on C Aril 2001 in S]o Paulo$BEd$

J228 <ennady yugano' +!$ 1C::- is the First Secretary o) the %o**unist Partyo) the Russian Federation +%PRF-. ,hich. at resent. is the secondBlargest arty in Russia$



Founded in 1CC8. it has atte*ted to )or*ulate a ne, )or* o) %o**unis* ,ith a *orenationalist !ent$ t declared itsel) to !e the successor to the %o**unist Party o) the RussianSo'iet Federati'e Socialist Reu!lic. ,hich ,as esta!lished in 1CC0 to ro'ide areu!licanBle'el !ranch o) the So'iet /nion@s %o**unist Party )or Russia. ,hich hadal,ays !een the only one o) the /SSR@s reu!lics to lac" a reu!lican organisation o) its

o,n$ t ,as a!olished in 1CC1 )ollo,ing the cou against <or!ache'$BEd$ J22: Alexander Pro"hano' +!$ 1C8- is a Russian ,riter and no'elist ,ho !eca*ean ultraBnationalist )ollo,ing the collase o) the /SSR$ 5e is the EditorBinB%hie) o)a'tra$BEd$ J22; Rodina. or #otherlandB(ational Patriotic /nion. ,as a coalition o)nationalist and Le)tist grous ,hich ,as created in 2008$ The arty generated so*econtro'ersy ,hen it ,as accused o) ro*oting antiBSe*itis* and racis*$ n 200=. Rodina*erged into a ne, arty. A 3ust Russia$BEd$ J22= Se'enteen #o*ents o) Sring ,as a So'iet tele'ision *iniseries aired in1C>8. a!out a So'iet sy ,ho has in)iltrated the (aHis@ high co**and and is tas"ed ,ithdisruting negotiations ongoing !et,een the Third Reich and the /nited States )or asearate eace. aligned against the So'iet /nion. during the Second 6orld 6ar$BEd$ J22> Leonid rone'oy layed the art o) <estao o))icer 5einrich #Wller in theseries$BEd$ J22 The Orange Re'olution too" lace in the /"raine in 200:B0;. and ,as seenas a 'ictory )or li!eral )orces o'er the traditional olitical esta!lish*ent$BEd$ J22C The #osco, %onte*orary Art %entre in #osco,$BEd$ J280 Gladi*ir Soro"in +!$ 1C;;- is a oular Russian ,riter and lay,right o) the ost*odernist school$BEd$ J281 Gictor Pele'in +!$ 1C=2- is a Russian ,riter. also a ost*odernist$BEd$ J282 Ernst (ie"isch. 5itler ein deutsches Gerhngnis +erlin 6iderstandsBGerlag.1C82-$ (o English translation exists$BEd$ J288 5arro SchulHeBoysen +1C0CB1C:2- ,as a Le)tBleaning nationalist ,ho)ought against the French occuation o) the Ruhr. and ,as later a *e*!er o)Gol"snationale Reichs'ereinigung +Peole@s (ational *erial /nion-$ 5e ,as )riendly,ith !oth nationalists and %o**unists. and heled to !egin the antiB(aHi acti'ities o) the?Red Orchestra@ grou$ 5e oined the Lu)t,a))e as a ilot and e'entually !eca*e an o))icer$5e ,as arrested and executed in 1C:2$BEd$ J28: Red Orchestra ,as the na*e gi'en !y the <estao to a sy ring in erlin that,as assing in)or*ation to the /nited States and the So'iet /nion$ eginning its acti'itiesin 1C8=. the <estao destroyed it in 1C:2$BEd$ J28; Friedrich 5aye" +1CCB1CC2- ,as an econo*ist ,ho ,as crucial to thede'elo*ent o) the Austrian school o) econo*ics$ 5e oosed collecti'is* and statecontrol o) the econo*y in )a'our o) classical li!eralis*. holding that only the )ree *ar"etand li*ited go'ern*ent ,ere the only e))ecti'e *ethod o) organiHing societies$BEd$ J28= Ada* S*ith +1>28B1>C0- ,as a Scottish econo*ist ,ho heled to lay the)oundation )or *odernBday caitalis*$ 5e ad'anced the idea that indi'idual sel)Binterest,as ulti*ately good )or all o) society$BEd$ J28> 3ohn Loc"e +1=82B1>0:- ,as an English hilosoher o) the Enlighten*ent,ho is regarded as the *ost i*ortant theorist o) li!eralis*. as his ,or"s ,ere extre*elyi*ortant to the de'elo*ent o) *odern de*ocracy$BEd$ J28 PierreB3oseh Proudhon +10CB1=;- ,as a French olitician and hilosoher



,ho oosed caitalis* and did not !elie'e in state o,nershi o) roerty. instead !elie'ing that roerty should !elong to ,or"ers@ grous$BEd$ J28C The %hicago school o) econo*ics ,as so na*ed !ecause *ost o) those ,hode'eloed it ,ere on the )aculty o) the /ni'ersity o) %hicago$ They )a'or total deregulationo) the econo*y$BEd$

J2:0 n the Gedic +5indu- caste syste*. the Shudras are the lo,est class.consisting o) the ser'ants and la!ourers$BEd$ J2:1 5u!ert GNdrine +!$ 1C:>- ,as the Foreign #inister in Pri*e #inister3osin@s Socialist ad*inistration !et,een 1CC> and 2002$ GNdrine is ,ellB"no,n )or hisoosition to A*erican hege*ony and oularised the ter* ?hyero,er@ to descri!eA*erica@s osition in ,orld a))airs$BEd$ J2:2 6illia* Kristol +!$1C;2- is one o) the *ost in)luential neoconser'ati'ethin"ers in A*erica today$ 5e ,as one o) the )ounders o) the Proect )or the (e, A*erican%entury. and is also the )ounder and EditorBinB%hie) o) the neoconser'ati'e ournal The6ee"ly Standard. and is a regular contri!utor to the Fox (e,s %hannel$

J2:8 Ko*so*ol ,as shorthand )or the %o**unist /nion o) outh. ,hich ,as theyoung eole@s !ranch o) the %o**unist Party o) the So'iet /nion$BEd$ J2:: egor <aidar +1C;=B200C- ,as a Russian econo*ist ,ho !rie)ly ser'ed asPri*e #inister o) the Russian Federation during 1CC2$ 5e ,as the de'eloer o) the ?shoc"theray@ *ethod o) transitioning the Russian econo*y )ro* !eing stateBrun to the )ree*ar"et. ,hich in'ol'ed the sudden re*o'al o) state regulation and the introduction o)li!eral re)or*s$ This *o'e ,as contro'ersial since it led to hardshi )or a great *anyRussians$BEd$

J2:; Anatoly %hu!ais +!$ 1C;;- is a Russian olitician ,ho ser'ed as DeutyPri*e #inister during the eltsin ad*inistration$ 5e ,as gi'en the tas" o) ri'atisingRussian industry a)ter the collase o) the So'iet /nion$BEd$ J2:= At the #unich %on)erence on Security Policy on 10 Fe!ruary 200>. PresidentPutin criticised A*erica@s hege*ony and ,hat he said ,as A*erica@s unconstrained use o))orce to resol'e international disutes. such as in ra9. saying that such olicies a!rogate the'alue o) international la, and ,ould lead to an ?ar*s race@$BEd$

J2:> #i"hail Khodor"o's"y +!$ 1C=8- is a Russian oligarch ,ho *ade !illions inde'eloing the Si!erian oil )ields a)ter the collase o) the So'iet /nion. !eco*ing therichest *an in Russia !y 200:$ An ad'ocate o) li!eral olicies and a critic o) Putin.Khodoro's"y ,as charged ,ith )raud and sentenced to rison in 2008. leading to thecollase o) his e*ire$ So*e ha'e clai*ed that his arrest ,as engineered to re*o'e one o)Putin@s ri'als$ 5e is currently set to !e released )ro* rison in 201>$BEd$ J2: This state*ent ,as originally *ade !y the <ree" hilosoher Protagoras +ca$:C0B:20 %E-$ As the 9uote only sur'i'es as a )rag*ent. its original context. and there)oreits intended *eaning. has !een disuted$BEd$ J2:C This is in On Ti*e and eing$ J2;0 According to Plato. ,ho discusses the concet in the Socratic dialogues#eno and Phaedo. since the soul is reeatedly incarnated in a series o) !odies. each !irthcauses one to )orget e'erything one "ne, in one@s re'ious li'es. there)ore learning isactually a rocess o) re*e*!ering ,hat one "ne, re'iously. rather than !eing theac9uisition o) ne, "no,ledge$ 5e ter*s this rocess ana*nesis$BEd$ J2;1 Latin ?ne, thing$@BEd$ J2;2 Ro!ert K$ #erton +1C10B2008- ,as an A*erican sociologist$ A*ong the



*any concets he de'eloed ,as the idea o) the ?sel)B)ul)illing rohecy@ in his !oo"Social Theory and Social Structure +1C:C-. !y ,hich a !elie) or exectation held !y a socialgrou a))ects their !eha'ior$ An exa*le gi'en !y #erton is o) a ,o*an ,ho gets *arried !ut is con'inced her *arriage is destined to end in di'orce her exectations ,ill in)luenceher actions and cause this to actually haen$BEd$

J2;8 (oesis. or nous. is a <ree" ter* ,hich re)ers to the *ind or the intellect$ The (eolatonists understood nous as the rocess !y ,hich the *ind trans*utes *atter into)or*. )or* ,hich ,as identi)ied ,ith !eauty$ They also !elie'ed that o!ects could !e thustrans)or*ed !y !oth reason and the soul +although reason ,as considered the *ore er)ect*ethod-$BEd$ J2;: n Plato@s theory o) ideas. the eidos designates the essential )or* o)so*ething !e)ore it !eco*es a!stractly reresented !y thought or language$BEd$ J2;; According to 5ardt and (egri. the ?*ultitude@ is a collecti'e social su!ect,hich !oth sustains the glo!al e*ire o) today. !ut ,hich ,ill also e'entually !ring a!outits destruction$BEd$ J2;= Latin ?aolitical@$ oth 3ulius E'ola and Ernst 3Wnger adoted this ter* todescri!e their o,n indi))erence to *atters o) ractical olitics later in li)e$BEd$ J2;> Friedrich (ietHsche. The <ay Science +%a*!ridge %a*!ridge /ni'ersityPress. 2001-. $ 1=0B1=1$ J2; One o) audrillard@s rincial ideas is that conte*orary reality is *ade uo) concets and sy*!ols ,hich ha'e no corresonding *eaning in the real ,orld. acondition he ter*ed ?hyerreality@$BEd$ J2;C %lassical <ree" ?urose@ or ?goal@$BEd$ J2=0 n 5o!!es@ !oo" Le'iathan. he de)ends the concet o) a!solute *onarchy onsocial contract rinciles +an agree*ent !et,een the *onarch and those go'erned-$BEd$ J2=1 RenN <uNnon +1=B1C;1- ,as a French ,riter ,ho )ounded ,hat has co*eto !e "no,n as the traditionalist school o) religious thought$ Traditionalis* calls )or areection o) the *odern ,orld and its hilosohies in )a'our o) a return to the siritualityand ,ays o) li'ing o) the ast +<uNnon hi*sel) ended u li'ing as a Su)i #usli* in %airo-$ J2=2 <uNnon discusses this in his #an and 5is eco*ing According to theGedanta +5illsdale. (e, or" Sohia Perennis. 2001-$BEd$ J2=8 ronisa, #alino,s"i +1:B1C:2- ,as a Polish anthroologist$ 5isethnograhic studies. !ased uon extensi'e )ield ,or" a*ong tri!al oulations. ,ere ioneering in their aroach$BEd$ J2=: Latin ?an argu*ent )ro* a stronger osition@$BEd$ J2=; Friedrich (ietHsche. Thus So"e arathustra +%a*!ridge %a*!ridge/ni'ersity Press. 200>-. $ 1=1$BEd$ J2== #ax 6e!er !elie'ed that science and technology had *ade it i*ossi!le )or*odern *an to !elie'e in the suranatural. ,hich he ter*ed the ?disenchant*ent o) the,orld@$BEd$ J2=> %lassical <ree" ?lace@$BEd$ J2= Anton Artaud +1C=B1C:- ,as a French artist and dra*atist ,ho de'eloedthe concet o) the ?theater o) cruelty@. !y ,hich he did not *ean sadis* !ut a *ethod )ordestroying )alsehoods )or the audience and un'eiling the truth !eneath$BEd$ J2=C n Artaud@s lay ?To 5a'e Done ,ith the 3udg*ent o) <od@ +1C:>-. he ,rote.?6hen you ,ill ha'e *ade hi* a !ody ,ithout organs. then you ,ill ha'e deli'ered hi*)ro* all his auto*atic reactions and restored hi* to his true )reedo*$@ n Antonin Artaud.



Selected 6ritings +er"eley. %ali)ornia /ni'ersity o) %ali)ornia Press. 1C>=-. $ ;>1$ J2>0 Latin ?*ad*an@$BEd$ J2>1 3ohann 3a"o! acho)en +11;B1>- ,as a S,iss anthroologist ,hoasserted in his !oo". #utterrecht +translated into English in the 'olu*e #yth. Religion. and#other Right JPrinceton Princeton /ni'ersity Press. 1CC2-. that lunar *atriarchy ,as the

ri*ordial condition o) hu*an society. and that solar atriarchy e*erged later in oositionto it$BEd$ J2>2 Follo,ing the Russian Re'olution o) 1C0;. the State Du*a ,as con'ened.suosedly ,ith the intention o) acting in an ad'isory role to the *onarchy as a lo,erhouse o) arlia*ent$ 5o,e'er. la,s enacted in 1C0= ensured that the Du*a ,ould ha'elittle in the ,ay o) in)luence o'er the %Har and his *inisters. and sure*e o,er continuedto rest ,ith hi*$BEd$ J2>8 Latin ?econo*ic *an@ and ?*an the creator@. resecti'ely$BEd$ J2>: <eorg Lu"Zcs +1;B1C>1- ,as a 5ungarian #arxist hilosoher and critic,ho sought an alternati'e *ode o) #arxis* to the orthodoxy ro*oted !y the So'iet/nion$ 5is ,ritings re*ain in)luential today. articularly in the )ield o) literary theory$ 5ealso !rie)ly held the ost o) #inister o) %ulture in the !rie) 5ungarian So'iet Reu!lic o)1C1C$BEd$

J2>; <eorg Lu"Zcs. 5istory and %lass %onsciousness Studies in #arxistDialectics +London Routledge 4 Kegan Paul. 1C>1-. $ 1:B1:C$BEd$ J2>= Gladi*ir Lenin once said. ?/nder socialis* any good coo"ing ,o*an could.,ith the sa*e ease. rule a state$@BEd$ J2>> DeleuHe and <uattari use the ter* desiringB*achine to descri!e ,hat they seeas the essentially *echanistic nature o) desire. 'ie,ed as a tye o) *achine e*!edded in anet,or" o) other !iological *achines$BEd$ J2> 3ulius E'ola. Eros and the #ysteries o) Lo'e The #etahysics o) Sex+Rochester. Ger*ont nner Traditions. 1CC1-$BEd$ J2>C 5er*an 6irth +1;B1C1- ,as a Dutch <er*an ,ho !elie'ed that there ,asan ancient. ,orld,ide (ordic culture ,hich has !een )orgotten aart )ro* so*e traces,hich re*ain encoded in ancient *yths and sy*!ols$ 5e de'oted his li)e@s ,or" to ro'ingthis thesis$ 5e ,as !rie)ly in'ol'ed ,ith the SS Ahnener!e in the 1C80s. although ,hen here)used to *a"e his theories con)or* to those o) the (ational Socialists. he ,as reected !ythe* and )orced into exile$BEd$ J20 Le <rand 3eu +The <reat <a*e- ,as the ournal o) a s*all grou aroundDau*al in Paris !et,een 1C2 and 1C82. "no,n collecti'ely as the Si*lists$ Theyatte*ted to synthesise a'antBgarde art ,ith their "no,ledge o) Eastern traditions$BEd$

J21 Ro!ert Red)ield. The Fol" Society +ndianaolis o!!sB#errill. 1C:>-$BEd$ J22 Anthroological traectory ,as the ter* coined !y Durand to descri!e therelationshi !et,een hysiology and society$BEd$ J28 n this sense. l@i*aginaire. or the i*agination. is used in the sense that it is atool ,hich allo,s hu*ans to redisco'er the relationshi !et,een the *aterial ,orld and the,orld o) ideal )or*s. or the siritual ,orld$BEd$

J2: Donna 5ara,ay +!$ 1C::-. a Pro)essor at the /ni'ersity o) %ali)ornia at Santa%ruH. has de'eloed ,hat she ter*s ?cy!org )e*inis*@$ The theory is co*lex. !ut !asically suggests that concets o) gender roles are arti)icially constructed rather thanha'ing any root in !iological reality$BEd$ J2; #ichel Foucault +1C2=B1C:- ,as an erudite French hilosoher. historian



and sociologist ,ho has !een associated ,ith !oth structuralis* and ost*odernis*.although he reected !oth la!els$ 5e ,rote not only on hilosohical the*es. !ut also on thesu!ects o) insanity and its treat*ent. risons. *edicine. and the history o) sexuality$BEd$ J2= ondage and disciline. do*inance and su!*ission. sadis* and *asochis*$ jEd$

J2> Plotinus +ca$ 20: B2>0- ,as a <ree" hilosoher ,ho ,as the )ounder o) the*ystical school o) thought no, "no,n as (eolatonis*$BEd$ J2 %arl Sch*itt. Political Theology +%hicago /ni'ersity o) %hicago Press.200;-$

J2C French ?the s*ooth sace@$ n A Thousand Plateaus. DeleuHe and <uattaridistinguish !et,een s*ooth sace and striated sace$ They clai*ed that s*ooth sace ,assynony*ous ,ith the ocean and the desert. areas inha!ited !y no*ads. and that s*oothsace ,as a lace o) constant change$BEd$ J2C0 Saturnalia ,as a Ro*an )esti'al )or the god Saturn$ A ,ee"Blong carni'al,as held. ,hich included the *asters ser'ing their sla'es throughout the eriod$BEd$ J2C1 A!ra* Kardiner +1C1B1C1- ,as an A*erican anthroologist and sychologist$ Kardiner *aintained that culture ,as a roduct o) the ersonalities o) theindi'iduals ,ho co*rised it. ,hich ,as in turn a roduct o) social conditionings resulting)ro* social institutions$BEd$ J2C2 Disositi). so*eti*es translated as ?aaratus@. is a ter* used !y Foucault tore)er to the *ethods I hysical. ideological and !ureaucratic I that are used !y a societyto en)orce its ,ill uon its *e*!ers$BEd$ J2C8 Girilio coined the ter* ?dro*ocratic@ to descri!e ,hat he sa, as the *ostsalient )eature o) *odernity. ,hich is the ursuit o) e'erBincreasing seed through technicaland scienti)ic ad'ance*ent$ Girilio !elie'ed that ,e are aroaching the li*it o) suchseed. and that the reaching o) this li*it ,ould *ean the end o) *odernity$BEd$ J2C: Paul Girilio +!$ 1C82- is a French hilosoher ,ho ,rites ri*arily a!outtechnology.as ,ell as ,hat the use o) hysical sace tells us a!out the institutions thatutiliHe it$BEd$ J2C; The organs that lie ,ithin the thorax. including the heart. the esohagus. andthe ly*h nodes$BEd$

J2C= <er*an ?)inal !attle@$BEd$ J2C> A ter* originally used !y Plato in his dialogues. ,hich re)ers to a grou o)concets or o!ects ,hich are di'ided and su!di'ided until a de)inition o) the ite* in9uestion has !een )ound$BEd$ J2C A ter*. )irst de)ined in its *odern usage !y E**anuel LN'inas. ,hich re)ersto ?otherness@. *eaning the act o) exchanging one@s ersecti'e )or that o) the theoreticalOther$BEd$ J2CC <ott)ried 6ilhel* Lei!niH +1=:=B1>1=- ,as a <er*an hilosoher and*athe*atician$ n his text. The #onadology. he clai*ed that su!stances could !e di'idedinto *onads +a concet ,hich reBdated hi*-. and that each *onad ,as reBset to act in aseci)ic ,ay in interaction ,ith the other tyes o) *onads$BEd$ J800 To DeleuHe. a no*ad reresents a state o) !eing that exists !et,een )ixed oints. ust as a desert no*ad is eretually *o'ing )ro* lace to lace along reBset atterns$BEd$ J801 Philo o) Alexandria +20 %EB;0 %E- ,as a 3e,ish hilosoher$ 5e !elie'edthat the logos ,as <od@s *ethod )or in)luencing the *aterial ,orld$BEd$



J802 5eraclitus +ca$ ;8;B:>; %E- ,as a reBSocratic <ree" hilosoher$ Only)rag*ents o) his ,or" sur'i'e$BEd$ J808 Par*enides ,as a <ree" hilosoher o) the Fi)th century %E$ Only)rag*ents o) one o) his oe*s sur'i'e$BEd$

J80: One o) 5eraclitus@ )rag*ents reads. ?(ature lo'es to hide itse)$@ t is

Frag*ent 1> in 5eraclitus The %o*lete Frag*ents. a'aila!le atco**unity$*iddle!ury$eduVvharrisVPhilosohyVheraclitus$d)$ J80; n hilosohy. an aoria is a ro!le* that has no clear solution. such as a aradox$BEd$ J80= eno ,as a student o) Par*enides and a reBSocratic <ree" hilosoher$ 5eis !estB"no,n )or his aoriae. or aradoxes$BEd$ J80> A #oe!ius stri is a structure that has only one side and only one edge$BEd$ J80 Kitaro (ishida +1>0B1C:;- ,as a 3aanese hilosoher ,ho ,as the )ounder o) the Kyoto school o) hilosohy$ 5e concei'ed !asho logic as a ,ay o) o'erco*ing thesu!ectBo!ect duality$BEd$



Documents

The Fourth Political Theory by Alexander Dugin