Alexander Dugin, a Pyrrhic victory of liberalism: "Even defeating his main opponent, the world's Western system, in fact, hastened his end"
The current system once bipolar world, not only contributed to technological development in the armies of geopolitical rivals — the Soviet Union and the United States — but also stimulated the search for creative ideology. The U.S. tried to oppose the "freedom" which, now that the Soviet Union has disappeared, there is no one to oppose. On the one stororny, we lost the Cold War and after the collapse of the Soviet Union formed a new world hegemony. But, on the other hand, the Cold War gave a chance to the new system of multipolarity — in fact during the confrontation the United States and the Soviet Union technology and capital transferred to third world countries, and thereby lost the absolute strength of America. This reflects the ambiguity of the outcome of the Cold War as a triumph of American hegemony. On the West without the USSR in an interview with a reporter On the eve says philosopher, political scientist and professor of the Moscow State University Alexander Dugin.
QuestionAlexander Gelevich, for more than 20 years in the world has such a powerful pole of what was the Soviet Union. A lot of discussion going on the causes of the collapse of the Soviet Union, that we are waiting on. What do you think of how the West was not the Soviet Union? How did the absence of a second pole to the West?
Alexander Dugin: The USSR and the absence of the Soviet Union can be considered at several levels. Here let's take a look from the point of view of ideology. During the period of the Soviet Union after the Second World War, when it was won by a joint victory of the liberals and communists over the Axis, that is above the national socialism and fascism in the world has developed the bipolar system. In ideological terms, this meant that there are now two world ideologies: liberalism — the same bourgeois capitalism, and, accordingly, on the other hand — communism and socialism. Two ideological models that contended for the right of expression of the spirit of modernity. The capitalists, liberals believed that they represent the last word of progress, development and education. And the disappearance of the Soviet Union on the ideological level meant a fundamental and perhaps decisive, irreversible victory of bourgeois liberalism and capitalism in the struggle for the legacy of modernism, the spirit of modernity. It turned out that socialism was not the one phase that follows the liberal and which is more advanced and modern-phase flow inside the modern, and a step to the side. The end of the Soviet Union was also a fundamental argument historic defeat of communist ideology in the battle with the liberals for the right to represent the new time.
A world without the Soviet Union — a world of triumphant liberalism, which has become the dominant paradigm for all mankind, and of the two ideologies, there was only one — the ideology of global liberalism, liberal democracy, capitalism, individualism, bourgeois society in its present state. A world without the Soviet Union — a world socialist loser who went down in history after fascism and communism, losing the historic duel. It fundamentally changed everything, in particular, it canceled the choice of ideology. If we want around the global world to be accepted into the mainstream, in the establishment, if we want to be treated as human beings, sub-standard, not marginal, not radical — we have to recognize the dogmatic foundations of liberalism: individualism, private property rights, human rights , elected officials of all, and, accordingly, the material inequality, which is realized in the course of economic activity with recognized nominal starting conditions. That is, these dogmas of liberalism are now the norm, the one who denies liberalism, he already looks not as a representative of another alternative ideology, but as marginal. That is what got the world without the Soviet Union.
A world without the Soviet Union — is a completely different world in every sense.
Now the second question — from a geopolitical point of view. The USSR and its opposition to the West represents a model of the balance of power, where the hegemony of the two, the two superpowers reorganized in their opposition to the rest of the space. And then the space that is occupied by the country to join them, it was also due to the positional power of the two main players. The balance of power of the USSR and the United States defined the political structure of the rest of the world, and if we abstract from the ideology, we see the world, consisting of two hegemonies, two poles — antagonistic, competing with each other, but that created each specific conditions of world order.
The collapse of the Soviet Union, the collapse of the socialist camp, the collapse of the entire Soviet model meant a shift from bipolarity to unipolarity. When there were two in the world hegemony, those countries that were at the level of "non-aligned" and refused to make a clear choice in either direction (the U.S. or the Soviet Union) to give room for political maneuver, in some cases quite large maneuver — it can be seen from the experience India. She was at the head of the movement "non-aligned". One can argue about how wide are opportunities for those who refused to stand on one side or another, but, nevertheless, the main strategic architecture of the world was based on the principle of opposition between the two superpowers. When one of these super powers are gone, instead of the bipolar model, we have come to a unipolar. It is fundamental, as the two poles of the bipolar model is a system organized on a "plus and minus" no matter who he considered an evil empire — we found them, they saw us — it's a common story in international relations. A pair of "friend-enemy" determines the identity of each of the participants, but when the bipolar system was broken, was a completely new system of "center-periphery" where there is only one absolute pole. This is the American superpower, developed the "civilized" West, and of the distance from this core, from the center, from the poles are peripheral countries, less developed, less civilized. That is a world without the Soviet Union — a world built on a completely different geometry. If we talk about theories, for example, as part of the American neo-realism, one of the founders of the American neo-realist Kenneth Walsh was a supporter of the bipolar hegemony and Dzhilston was a supporter of unipolar hegemony, is the theory of hegemonic stability. Thus, a world without the Soviet Union — is a world created by a completely different matrix, the other world order.
Oh, and the third thing you can say after when the Soviet Union collapsed in the 90s, these two aspects that I spoke to were very clear and very aptly interpreted — on the ideological level, Francis Fukuyama, who declared the end of history as of total victory of liberalism on a global scale, and a different point of view — the start of a unipolar world. That is the fact of the collapse of the Soviet Union was realized in the West in the ideological and geopolitical, strategic manner. And, of course, very bad comprehended by us, because we are, and to a large extent still are in shell shock — we do not have understood the end of the USSR, we have no clear idea of what happened, such a clear, as the Americans or representatives another world. We can not even take it rationally, as this event was a shock for us, which we, of course, have not yet recovered. And in the 90's, when the West became apparent defeat of the USSR in the Cold War, that is, the transition from the two competing ideologies to one — now universally, dominant liberal ideology, there is some dispute, already in the West, whether it is a final and irrevocable as Fukuyama thought or this unipolar world and will only be a certain time and then will change the world order otherwise.
We can sum up the first two decades of the USSR without saying that the unipolar moment gradually gives way to the rising multi-polar moment. Thus, while unipolarity is preserved, but already we can see some vague outlines of the coming multipolarity. And this is very important: peace with the Soviet Union, which was understood by the West in the 90th, is becoming more and more problematic in the new configuration of forces to the extent that America does not cope with the task to organize the effective management of global hegemony. And at the level of ideology, are also very interesting processes — capitalism celebrated his triumph in the 90s and basically was ready to cancel liberalism as an ideology, as it was not just ideology, but a matter of course.
Now the West is undergoing a fundamental internal implosion, internal ideological explosion, as was left without an opponent who could keep it in a certain ideological framework, because liberalism was very convincing, but when he resisted totalitarianism.
People are asked to: "or freedom — or lack of freedom," liberalism chosen on the basis of the opposite, reverse — if we do not want totalitarianism, that we want, then liberalism. Well, today totalitarian regimes, in principle, almost gone, liberalism in a polemical sense, nothing else to do. In varying degrees, democratic values established themselves everywhere, and that people are no longer faced with the fact that oppose liberalism illiberalism. He has already won — so what? This is the best of all possible worlds? Is he removed the main challenges? The main fears? If he made the world more just? If he made our life more happy? And a negative answer to this question today is not poured into something that people moved from liberalism to the communist ideology, for example, to the base and a major critical and opposing theories. And today, that resentment liberalism erodes it from within, liberalism is not sufficient for many, unconvincing, not the last word, but because there is no alternative, liberalism begins to decompose and undermined from within.
The crisis of unipolarity and the crisis of liberalism are what stands in the center of attention of Western intellectuals. But without the Soviet Union — is an entirely different matter than in the era of bipolarity, as the crisis and that, and nobody else can be assigned. If before the crisis of capitalism, in general, be replenished, assign alternative socialist system, the crisis of unipolarity is now expanding leaves a vacuum and the ideological and geopolitical, which gradually fills in some Islamic fundamentalism, something multipolarity, somewhat critical of the who have not yet acquired the final, a clear expression. But in fact the victory of capitalism was a Pyrrhic victory for liberalism.
Today, we see that this triumph that many seemed irreversible in the 90th, was actually something completely different than what it was in the 90s. We are, I repeat, are still in shell shock, with us as patients should be treated, we are mentally defective society for some period of history, we have come to, but we need time, effort. So, in the West it was understandable phenomenon, but today it is called into question.
Even defeating his main opponent, the world Western system, in fact, hastened his end. And the fate of the American empire, American hegemony, unipolarity and modern, and the winning of liberalism largely may repeat the fate of the USSR. As with all stability while apparently control, good governance, in fact, the internal expansion system reached a critical point, all of us who lived in that period, it seemed that this can not happen. Despite some critical moments, the Soviet Union until the last impression of a very stable, very strong supervisory system with a huge army, with the KGB, political, social institutions, and suddenly it was gone. USSR not only fell in the war, such as Germany, which lost a terrible war, and then disappeared. In order to defeat Nazism, it took a real effort of all humanity, the planet was bleeding, and the allies, and their enemies fought to the last. The fate of the Soviet Union was very different — it just disappeared, as if it had never happened, quietly smoldering pile of party cards, and that's heroism Pavel Korchagin, great buildings, even the Great War was simply forgotten and wiped out in exchange for a fairly small piece of sausage.
That is, the Soviet Union fell because of microscopic causes that actually now look ridiculous, and the people who destroyed it, look pathetic and insignificant. Here today liberalism may just collapse overnight, and will not have to kill him, the fate of the Soviet Union is clearly repeated today at the level of the global system — as well as the mighty Soviet Union fell, leaving us in a different world, a different reality. And despite the fact that the visibility of the victory of liberalism remains as an absolute triumph, at some point may disappear and the global American empire because of the seemingly inconsequential reasons.
Question: You have raised an interesting subject — the ideological competition. Since the West could not defeat the Soviet Union by brute force, as was the case with Germany, since we had nuclear weapons, and open conflict was dangerous for all, America has had to develop its "soft power." And during the confrontation with the Soviet Union in the West was a creative exploration of ideological approaches to the formation of the desired opposing ideology. Because of Western society expelled some inherent same organic process — they declared communist or fascist. Do not bring harm to the West in the development of this selectivity? What more devastating, paradoxically, brought the West victory over the communist idea?
Alexander Dugin: I do not think that the Cold War is somehow negatively affected by the distortion of the liberal model. As Nietzsche said, "The sins and virtues grow in a person of the same root." Man, for instance, a bold — and war is a virtue, but when he returned from the war, he starts to run amok, he likes to radicalism, his fearlessness, courage may well lead to a peaceful life to the imbalance, aggressiveness, etc. Similarly, the collapse of liberalism and the internal implosion of the West — it does not cost the Cold War, is the cost of victory in the Cold War. Because, when the war was on, in liberalism was the main argument, which is always saved him when Western society in critical situations. They point the finger at the Soviet Union, and said, "Here they worse, their gulag, they have no freedom." And thus by conversion to another liberalism during the Cold War solved many internal problems and contradictions. The presence of such an enemy as the Soviet Union was vital for the West. So I think that the Cold War spurred the West, including the development of "soft power" and other technologies, social changes taking place in order to compete with the social system of the socialist countries. All opposition to the Soviet Union was just saving for Western capitalism in every sense, the existence of such a system was the basis of the guarantors of its existence. And having lost such an opponent, starting frantically search for another, for example, in the face of Islamic fundamentalism, the West has lost the most important thing (Islamic fundamentalism is not as serious an ideology like communism, compared to the communist system of the USSR — it's just a joke, the phenomenon is quite serious, but not compared with the USSR).
I am still convinced that the fundamental cause of the crisis of modern Western society is the result of the victory of the liberal ideology, the West's victory over the East and the disappearance of the Soviet Union. And never in the United States will no longer be an enemy, will not be the geopolitical situation that existed in the ideological, geopolitical bipolarity — never such a gift is no more. Liberalism was left alone with yourself, and it's here that pops up in the absence of liberalism as an ideology in which any kind of positive program. Because freedom as understood by liberals, is freedom "from" freedom directed against the state, totalitarian ties against public religious identities. When the program of liberalism is made, it can only be one thing — to dismantle itself, free from himself. It's happening now. So I think that the West was hit not matter that he was forced to compete with us, and vice versa — the fact that he freed from this.
Question: Was the absolute triumph of victory in the Cold War? Russia has historically become known as the "graveyard of empires." And the King of Sweden Carl, and Napoleon and Hitler ended his conquests here. All of these modes — part of the militant Western civilization. And even our defeat in the Cold War — thoroughly shattered enemy Pyrrhic victory was enough for them, apparently, for a while?
Alexander Dugin: That is what you are right, I think so, too. Although this is very disappointing, but that it was Rostopchin, the governor of Moscow, to take the city during the Napoleonic Wars. As Russian people to fall back in the early years of the Great Patriotic War. The real question is whether we have lost the Cold War is truly a war, or we have lost a very serious battle, let the enemy in the form of the liberals, "Echo of Moscow" and other bastards right in the center of our Russian life. Of course, there is the presence of the invaders, occupiers, Gauleiters, representatives of Western society — they define our culture to a large extent, information policy, education — yes, we have handed over to Moscow. We actually passed to Moscow. People who represent the western hegemony — they're here, they are at the center of our society, in the 90s they just completely took over power. Today, we are, of course, consider the following question: is there any chance, using a strategy of Scythian, Russian strategy, and, perhaps, the Soviet strategy, luring the enemy deep into their own territory, to overstretch, and then wait for the moment when he just runs away from here ? When the "Echo of Moscow" will collect your stinking bags to get out of here with all the listeners. Here we wait for it to the Germans fled to Moscow in the end, or the army of Napoleon, we wait for it to Americans and American global hegemony — is an open question. I do not know if we have lost the decisive battle or the war. This will be addressed in the near future, the fact that Putin has appeared as a phenomenon, as a political phenomenon — it is, in general, gives us hope that we only lost the battle. But maybe it really is and you need to go to the counter, to take revenge. And at the same time tightening the liberal who believed in its global dominance in their victory on the total level, perhaps we approached the end. I want to believe that this is so, but the question is still open, much still depends on us. If we now make a choice in the direction that we are slaves to the liberal hegemony — all, then we can make this victory in the Cold War our opponents are truly committed.
Much depends on us, and from Islamic countries, from India, from China very much depends. However, today it seems that, despite the bravura of the West regarding their posts held, irreversible, absolute and final victory of the latter, which we have heard, perhaps, that is not the case. Already from the field of battle sound much more cautious reports, more pessimistic. They say they may be, we gain a foothold in the positions that we have now? Leave alone those or other objects we won? Maybe withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, can be left alone even for Russia its territory? These voices are all the more distinct and more distinct, but in fact I believe that everything will be decided. Even those events about which we are speaking — the end of the Soviet Union — before the end of the meaning of this we do not understand. Not because we think bad, but because the end has not really arrived. As if on-site bipolar world there multipolar world, maybe it will be even and well. But if the collapse of the USSR due to falling global liberal hegemony, the Western Empire, the capitalist — maybe it will also be our victory. That is, in fact, the last point in the history of the USSR on the Elimination put early. This is an open topic and it depends on how we are living today, we will, first, to understand what happened, and secondly, to analyze the present and, finally, to behave in the future.
Question: And if you do not take an ideological component, and military superiority? Now there is a degradation of the military potential of the West? Once upon a competition with the Soviet Union was pushing for a new, more technically advanced improvement in the army. Now the military might of America is not even enough for a victory over the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Alexander Dugin: I do not think so, first of all, the Taliban can not win — because the guerrilla war is ineradicable. When a man is fighting on its territory — this is a war against human nature, and nature always wins, sooner or later. Therefore, the Taliban or any other partisan well-rooted tendencies can not be beat. And speaking nevertheless objectively, the West cope with it better than the Soviet Union. I do not think the West today is fundamentally in the not so helpless. Yes, he went to decolonization, but because the economic control, cultural, informational, it is more effective than direct military suppression. It's just a more successful form of domination, which is carried out with the help of the media, networks, the same «Soft Power» (in fact resorted to it not because it is more humane, but because it is more efficient). As dominance, suppression and approval of control over others by means »Soft Power» with a greater degree of success, it is no more humane weapons and better weapons. Or, for example, control over the former colonies — not by direct administration, and by maintaining in its sphere of influence. There is a growing domination. Creation of the British Commonwealth, including former colonies, but named differently, British Commonwealth of Nations — this is a more efficient way in our new economy to exploit the former colonies — a new form of colonization. «Soft Power» — is an advanced «Hard Power», although the last of the Americans do not give up. That is, I would still be ahead of time did not speak a funeral oration over the western system.
To the West collapsed, it still should be destroyed, and today there are some prerequisites. Today we see the weakness of this system, possibly the West will find some technological approaches to deal with these weaknesses, and that until he found someone who plays on the opposite side of hegemony, for example, Putin personally, even though I I do not know whether it is Russia, but Putin clearly does not recognize the end of the hegemony, but so far no he is not ready, nor our society is not ready to throw a direct challenge to the hegemony, but Putin is playing against her. She played against China, but also by the rules, too, by semitones against it plays a number of Islamic countries, especially the Iranians, but against the hegemony can play an even greater number of players, in particular, the countries of Latin America, Turkey, India, Pakistan. In general, if we try to carefully build a roster counter-hegemonic potentials, we can see quite an impressive arsenal of power directed against the West. But these might, in contrast to the Western power, not combined. West coordinate their efforts: the people who run Hollywood — these are the same people that run the Pentagon. "Google" and the CIA — is not fundamentally different phenomena, they are different departments of the overall strategic process. But opponents of American hegemony fragmented, coordination of counter-hegemonic potency — that is what we need. Today there is no Soviet Union, it can not be, we need to create an alternative to a completely different nature, multipolar, network, planetary. This is closely linked to considerations of the collapse of the Soviet Union, because if we want an alternative to what exists, we can not just go back to the revival of the Soviet Union, we need to think in completely new terms. Subject Soviet Union — is not subject matter of the past, this theme present and future, but the interpretation has to be built on a new level.
Question: That is the restoration of the Soviet system, the emergence of a new union state on the territory of the former USSR, do you think it impossible?
Alexander Dugin: On the basis of the Soviet ideology is not possible to recreate the Soviet Union and simply unrealistic. In none of these countries that they say or are planning association, there are no major forces representing socialism. The Soviet experience in the past, and any form of association and integration require completely new ideological, philosophical, economic, geopolitical, conceptual, theoretical approaches. Therefore, the Eurasian Union will not be playing any of the Russian Empire or the Soviet Union, is a completely new concept and understanding of its front. Not that Putin knows what he would do, I think it largely operates intuitively correct features of the vector integration, but the structure of this integration, the content of the Eurasian Union nor in our society, nor in the post-Soviet space, no one thought about it. Since the ideological changes in our world over the last 20 years so rapid that we simply do not have time, there is no way to understand them. But, nevertheless, they are irreversible, they happen, so apply to the Eurasian Union measurements of the European Union or the Soviet Union is equally unacceptable. There is a new understanding of multi-polarity of American hegemony — that in fact the Americans are, and what their control, for example, the Russian liberalism, it's the same group of corrupt, weak-minded, hate their country Russophobes, and not liberals.
They are destructive and oppose communism, Russian idea, but if you ask, are they responsible for his liberal views, whether they are liberals finished, beliefs, conscious, whether they are able to act in the liberal paradigm in cases where this liberal paradigm will carry with them not only the benefits, grants, travel and friendly slap on the cheek American curators, when you have to actually pay for their beliefs, I think we're going to have the same handful of dissidents who give the impression of urban crazy. As in Soviet times, will Novodvorskaja, Alekseev, Ponomarev — that they are liberals really liberals and liberalism as trendy and fashionable as liberalism, and as for him being beaten, and when the yield premium for it. But they are few — a handful of really similar to humans from a psychiatric clinic. These are the real liberals, and those who are in Russia trying to be like these patients — this is the post-Soviet conformist, obscure phenomenon that combined hatred of Russia, to our history. These people think of themselves planters in pith helmets, drove to some Aborigines, but in fact it is not the "Barons de bush" who ride the dirt of unwashed Russia, and that the servants, lackeys, who in the absence of his master imagined themselves master. That is the Russian liberals, because Americans who are counting on them, they may miscalculate, because they are not liberals, but just selling bastard. Americans wash their bitter tears still on its agents in Russia, these agents act, until she gets paid.