In this work Alexander Dugin analyzes the development of earlier Eurasianism to its current manifestations on the political scene. According to Dugin, “Eurasianism is a type of structuralism with the accent placed on multiplicity and synchronicity of structures” (Dugin loc. Cited 68). This means there are a plurality of human societies, each with its own “mode of growing” that must be respected.
Dugin sees Russia’s role as defending the possibility of each civilization’s unique flourishing. This means Russia creates the political space as opposed to the Atlanticist desire to impose globalization. In terms of method Dugin largely applies Heidegger’s philosophy, though not universally. He draws upon suggestions made by both “Left” (dialectical) and “Right” (traditionalist) thinkers as they both oppose neo-liberalist/globalism (loc. 434).
How would a Neo-Eurasianist Policy Look?
Dugin isn’t blind to the advances that globalism has made. Whether we like it or not, it happened and we can’t go back to 19th century nation-states. Please note this: We are not nationalists in the strict sense of the word. Therefore, he suggests “several global zones (poles). The Eurasian Idea is an alternative or multipolar version of globalization” (loc. 641). Similar to his claims in The Last War of the World-Island, we no longer see a battle between East/West or North/South, but of Center/Periphery with the Atlanticist Civilization (New York/London/Brussels) at the center.
And within these zones there are poles and “Great Spaces,” or democratic empires that are organically constituted. Some examples
(4) Mediterranean Europe
(5) Eurasian Europe
Etc. (see this article for more discussion on Meridian Zones; http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/11/the-eurasian-idea/)
Dugin argues for regions to have autonomy, not sovereignty and boundaries, not borders. Boundaries arise from an organic wholeness. Borders are used to divide, boundaries to bind. For countries with large amounts of land, major cities should be depopulated and there should be a network of townships. Townships are ecological settlements separated from the cities by clean forests (page 85).
Dugin ends his philosophical analysis with remarkable insights into social atomism. Lockean/empiricism/libertarianism is false because it rests upon a false physics, a false ontology. Atomism is false because we now about sub-atomic structures. Empirical social philosophies are false because within the individual are underlying currents that resist reductionism.
This book isn’t perfect, though. There was a coherent argument throughout, but some chapters seemed like blog articles tacked on.
6 thoughts on “An Intro to Neo-Eurasianism”
Thanks for the post. I really like your posts that focus on politics. I in general usually agree with you. Big cities are monstrosities that foster human evil and diminish human flourishing.
You’re welcome. What was exicting about Dugin’s book is that he can’t be painted as a pure nationalist. He realizes you can’t go back to the 19th century, but at the same time man isn’t simply an artificial being abstracted from the land. So that’s where he is giong with the project.
I’m sure the Lithuanians would just love to be in an Eurasian Europe…
Dugin would say they might not have much practical choice. The Baltics have thrown in their entire identity with NATO/EU. Since the latter is circling the toilet and NATO hasn’t really faced a formiddable opponent in, well, ever, that, too, might be a false promise.
Maybe not such a ‘democratic empire’ then.
Pingback: Review: Clash of Civilizations | Tractatus Logico-Geopoliticus