counter create hit The Fourth Political Theory - Download Free eBook
Ads Banner
Hot Best Seller

The Fourth Political Theory

Availability: Ready to download

The Fourth Political Theory is the first book by the famed Russian political theorist to appear in the English language. It presents a summary of his basic ideas considering the development of a new political theory transcending the old categories of liberalism, Marxism and fascism. All the political systems of the modern age have been the products of three distinct ideolog The Fourth Political Theory is the first book by the famed Russian political theorist to appear in the English language. It presents a summary of his basic ideas considering the development of a new political theory transcending the old categories of liberalism, Marxism and fascism. All the political systems of the modern age have been the products of three distinct ideologies: the first, and oldest, is liberal democracy; the second is Marxism; and the third is fascism. The latter two have long since failed and passed out of the pages of history, and the first no longer operates as an ideology, but rather as something taken for granted. The world today finds itself on the brink of a post-political reality - one in which the values of liberalism are so deeply embedded that the average person is not aware that there is an ideology at work around him. As a result, liberalism is threatening to monopolise political discourse and drown the world in a universal sameness, destroying everything that makes the various cultures and peoples unique. According to Alexander Dugin, what is needed to break through this morass is a fourth ideology - one that will sift through the debris of the first three to look for elements that might be useful, but that remains innovative and unique in itself. Dugin does not offer a point-by-point program for this new theory, but rather outlines the parameters within which it might develop and the issues which it must address. Dugin foresees that the Fourth Political Theory will use the tools and concepts of modernity against itself, to bring about a return of cultural diversity against commercialisation, as well as the traditional worldview of all the peoples of the world - albeit within an entirely new context. Written by a scholar who is actively influencing the direction of Russian geopolitical strategy today, The Fourth Political Theory is an introduction to an idea that may well shape the course of the world's political future.


Compare
Ads Banner

The Fourth Political Theory is the first book by the famed Russian political theorist to appear in the English language. It presents a summary of his basic ideas considering the development of a new political theory transcending the old categories of liberalism, Marxism and fascism. All the political systems of the modern age have been the products of three distinct ideolog The Fourth Political Theory is the first book by the famed Russian political theorist to appear in the English language. It presents a summary of his basic ideas considering the development of a new political theory transcending the old categories of liberalism, Marxism and fascism. All the political systems of the modern age have been the products of three distinct ideologies: the first, and oldest, is liberal democracy; the second is Marxism; and the third is fascism. The latter two have long since failed and passed out of the pages of history, and the first no longer operates as an ideology, but rather as something taken for granted. The world today finds itself on the brink of a post-political reality - one in which the values of liberalism are so deeply embedded that the average person is not aware that there is an ideology at work around him. As a result, liberalism is threatening to monopolise political discourse and drown the world in a universal sameness, destroying everything that makes the various cultures and peoples unique. According to Alexander Dugin, what is needed to break through this morass is a fourth ideology - one that will sift through the debris of the first three to look for elements that might be useful, but that remains innovative and unique in itself. Dugin does not offer a point-by-point program for this new theory, but rather outlines the parameters within which it might develop and the issues which it must address. Dugin foresees that the Fourth Political Theory will use the tools and concepts of modernity against itself, to bring about a return of cultural diversity against commercialisation, as well as the traditional worldview of all the peoples of the world - albeit within an entirely new context. Written by a scholar who is actively influencing the direction of Russian geopolitical strategy today, The Fourth Political Theory is an introduction to an idea that may well shape the course of the world's political future.

30 review for The Fourth Political Theory

  1. 4 out of 5

    Stephen Borthwick

    The compilation and translation of this work save it from a single-star rating; the team at Arktos is exceptional in this regard. The ideas expressed therein, however, are convoluted, deliberately obscurantist, and in many cases plainly nonsensical. Dugin's understanding of Orthodox Christianity is perhaps his greatest intellectual deficit, though he does no good service to the phenomenology or hermeneutics of Heidegger, either. His goal to overcome post-modernism with post-modernism has resulte The compilation and translation of this work save it from a single-star rating; the team at Arktos is exceptional in this regard. The ideas expressed therein, however, are convoluted, deliberately obscurantist, and in many cases plainly nonsensical. Dugin's understanding of Orthodox Christianity is perhaps his greatest intellectual deficit, though he does no good service to the phenomenology or hermeneutics of Heidegger, either. His goal to overcome post-modernism with post-modernism has resulted in what is perhaps the greatest collection of nihilist drivel in recent memory. Compounding this disappointment is the promise of the book to offer a fresh alternative to contemporary geopolitics and worn-out Occidental ideologies. What it provides instead is a poorly executed re-hashing of turn-of-the-century Slavophile ideas that have already been better reinterpreted by authors like Oswald Spengler. Combine utter ignorance of Hiedeggerian philosophy with a clumsy re-introduction of Nikolai Danilevsky's historiography based on a semi-digested Spenglerian framework; stir well and add some stirring but empty phrases, and you have Dugin's entire intellectual framework in a nutshell. In short, Spengler said it better without all the pseudo-philosophy and even that's in dire need of an update.

  2. 4 out of 5

    Jacob Aitken

    This review has in mind St Cheetos the Prophet. The phrase that best sums up Dugin's approach is "Negating the Logic of History." Dugin begins by listing the three most common (and modern) ideologies: Liberalism: the individual is the normative subject Fascism: race or nation is normative subject Communism: Class The second and third options failed, leaving liberalism in charge. 4th political theory: Dasein is the acting subject. Liberalism is the broad, architectonic worldview that hinges on several a This review has in mind St Cheetos the Prophet. The phrase that best sums up Dugin's approach is "Negating the Logic of History." Dugin begins by listing the three most common (and modern) ideologies: Liberalism: the individual is the normative subject Fascism: race or nation is normative subject Communism: Class The second and third options failed, leaving liberalism in charge. 4th political theory: Dasein is the acting subject. Liberalism is the broad, architectonic worldview that hinges on several assumptions (the challenging of which will entail a drone strike). Classical Liberals defined freedom as “freedom from.” There should be no ties on an individual’s will. It is these individuals, acting alone but taken as a whole, who form the circle of liberal action.Lacking a telos by definition, liberalism is hard-pressed to explain what we have freedom for. Against this Dugin posits Heidegger's Dasein as the acting subject of the 4th Political Theory. Dasein is a way to overcome the subject-object duality. It is inzwichen, the “between.” One valuable insight of Dugin's is his pinpointing the bigotry of Western liberals. All societies must accept liberalism in its current manifestation. What if you don't want to? Well, if you don't have natural resources you are probably okay. Otherwise, look out. Liberal ideology is necessarily evolutionary. The concept of progress takes one from barbarism to technologism and the more refined way of life of the markets. This is what Dugin calls "The Monotonic Process:" he idea of constant growth, accumulation, steady progress by only one specific indicator (60). In other words, in a system only one value (x) grows. Only one thing (or a small group of things) accumulates. Applied to either machines or biological life, this is death. Modern political options have all seen progress and time in a linear fashion. Even more so, because of time there must naturally be progress. By contrast, Dugin suggests that T1: Time is a social phenomenon with its structures arising from social paradigms (68). By this he wants to safeguard the idea that there can be “interruptions” and reversals in the flow of time. History does not simply teach the march of capitalism upon earth (borrowing and adapting Hegel’s phrase). Nevertheless, and perhaps unaware, Dugin remains close to the linear view. He does note that time is “historical” (70) and from that draws a very important, Heideggerian conclusion: it cannot be objective. Why not? The acting subject, the historical observer (whom we will call “Dasein,” but this is true also of the individual in liberalism) is finite. He doesn’t have a god’s-eye view on history. Of course, that’s not to say it can’t be real or reliable per the observer, but we don’t have the Enlightenment’s dream of a god’s-eye application of reason to reality. Dugin then analyses how Leftist and Conservatism evolved in the 20th century. Finally, he ends with a dense and staggering discussion on the nature of time. Kant denied that by mere perception we have access to the thing-in-itself. Therefore, if the being of the present is put in doubt, then all three moments (past, present, future) become ontologically unproveable. From the perspective of pure reason, the future is the phenomenon, and hence, it is (157). Kant puts time nearer to the subject and space nearer to the object. Therefore, time is subject-ive. It is the transcendental subject that installs time in the perception of the object.

  3. 4 out of 5

    Kyle

    Dugin, "Putin's brain" is an interesting character, and in my opinion certainly a bad actor on the world stage, but he does have a few relevant ideas here and there. This book, which touts itself essentially as a critique of the three major political ideologies of the recent past (liberalism, communism and fascism) has some ups and many downs, with the highlight thankfully being the very last few pages on the metaphysics of chaos, a true gem of an essay. The analyses of conservatism and Marxism Dugin, "Putin's brain" is an interesting character, and in my opinion certainly a bad actor on the world stage, but he does have a few relevant ideas here and there. This book, which touts itself essentially as a critique of the three major political ideologies of the recent past (liberalism, communism and fascism) has some ups and many downs, with the highlight thankfully being the very last few pages on the metaphysics of chaos, a true gem of an essay. The analyses of conservatism and Marxism had quality aspects, but the work as a whole frequently is derailed into tar pits of often almost entirely empty philosophizing and quite strange conclusions to draw from regarding the state of things. Dugin's conceptualization of liberalism (including it's original expression as classical liberalism, of which libertarianism sprouts from) is as enemy # 1, a truly evil ideology born of the most corrupt society, the West. Even though he vaults valid criticisms of it here and there, I can't take this position remotely seriously, as it rather poorly and clumsily does not make the distinction between crony capitalism and real free markets, globalism vs. nationalism, republics vs. democracies, or the endless hedonistic degeneracy of progressivism and the rational self interest of individualism. His incredibly pretentious and entirely abstract, not remotely pragmatic "solutions" involve converting the subject of history from the individual or the group to Heidegger's 'dasein', to move from rational back to magical thinking, and to move to a civilizational model instead of that of nation-states. On top of all this, it seems unsaid but fairly certain that he is a Luddite, which is equally cringeworthy as much of the rest of it, which often involves whole chapters of pointless waffling just to get the point where he admits he has no real idea or plan for his "Fourth Political Theory". Near the end of the book he finally says that it may look something like National Bolshevism, of which I have zero interest in. Dugin is irrational and more than a little insane. He has embraced his "Fourth Political Theory" probably too literally, which includes an alarming concession to mania and schizophrenia in the stead of any sort of rationality. I'm not kidding about this bit. I'm into shamanism and psychopomp myself, but I think this man has spent too much time trapped in his own deranged and pathetic mind. Either that, or the lead poisoning from the plumbing in his shitty flat has finally set in. He is truly a dangerous individual, and it is horrifying to think he has Putin's ear. The work reads as a case study of the worst aspects of a demented mutant Russian psyche, and is almost entirely void of genuine, constructive suggestions for the future, or an honest look at the West. I can't wait to not read the rest of his books ;)

  4. 5 out of 5

    Steve Middendorf

    In Europe and its recent offshoot America, also known as “The West” is the tendency to speak and think of European experiences as if they were universal experiences. This is called Eurocentricism: that what the West thinks of as right and good is indeed right and good for the rest of the world. The practice recognises only European actors and actions as the primary driving forces in the world. It reinterprets all of humanity’s common history to present our (the West’s) superiority as both inhere In Europe and its recent offshoot America, also known as “The West” is the tendency to speak and think of European experiences as if they were universal experiences. This is called Eurocentricism: that what the West thinks of as right and good is indeed right and good for the rest of the world. The practice recognises only European actors and actions as the primary driving forces in the world. It reinterprets all of humanity’s common history to present our (the West’s) superiority as both inherent and inevitable. Its prescriptions for the rest of the world are “to be more like us.” Being “more western” is good. Being “less western” is backward and bad. In that, it is imperialist, racist and chauvinistic. The rise of America since the 20th century as a unipolar military and cultural power has violently thrust this phenomenon onto the Slavs, the Chinese and the Arabs. Russia has decided to react. Russia, under Putin, has decided to resist this military and cultural hegemony. In Ukraine and the Middle East, Russia has said “No” militarily to America’s unipolar decision making. They have also said “No” to the narrative that describes everything Western as “good” and everything Russian as “bad.” Culturally, this is why Russia’s news channels (RT.com) is so important. It continuously points out Russia’s, China’s and Turkey’s behaviour as normal, and everything about America’s actions as abnormal, bad and hypocritical. (And oh how we go apoplectic when given a taste of our own medicine! In Ukraine and Syria, Russia is fighting back with militarily weapons. With their public media channels, they’re fighting back with cultural weapons. Enter Alexander Dugin. Dugin, has become known as the man who best explains Putin to the West. The trolls and the fake news industry have been muddying Dugin’s history and his reputation. Stick to his books or what he actually says in English on YouTube. He is a sociologist and public intellectual in Russia who has published more than 40 books, and speaks many languages. In this book, Dugin acknowledges that The First Political Theory, Liberal Democracy defeated the Second and Third political theories, Socialism and Fascism as a means of organising the economy and Society. For reasons and on evidence that we all know, he says that Liberal Democracy is failing and that a Fourth Political Theory is needed. I accepted Dugin's critique of Liberal Democracy whole heartedly (this takes up the first 20% of the book )and I would highly recommend it to anyone vaguely dissatisfied with the West and wanting to know why. However, the remainder of the book is indecipherable. I cannot figure the characteristics of this Fourth Political Theory from what I've read. (Perhaps Stephen Borthwick's review explains that.)

  5. 5 out of 5

    Nora Gillespie

    What do I think? Let me see...hmm...well I didn't want to purchase this book in the physical, so I bought it electronically so I could forget about it some day. Thus I forget when this book inevitably pisses me off, I have to remember to not throw my phone against the wall. This book is overly complicated and overly simple at the mind numbingly same time.

  6. 5 out of 5

    Owlseyes

    "you [USA] are not anymore boss" "nobody has monopoly of truth" "we have our special Russian truth" "The Most Dangerous Philosopher in the World", in: http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/the-d... "you [USA] are not anymore boss" "nobody has monopoly of truth" "we have our special Russian truth" "The Most Dangerous Philosopher in the World", in: http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/the-d...

  7. 4 out of 5

    Alejo

    It starts as a good critique of liberalism, but then it goes into a full rant mode that's nothing more than good old fashioned traditionalism. The funny thing is that in trying to overcome post-modernism, it uses one of its most significant features: mixing concepts. National-bolshevism is nothing more than the mix of fascism with marxism (crazy as it may sound).

  8. 5 out of 5

    Michael Kolczynski

    An insufferable read. The entire book is essentially "It would be nice if we had a new theory to challenge liberalism because communism and fascism failed. I would like one because I hate liberalism. I hope people have some ideas." It occasionally makes true observations about the world and then spends seven paragraphs being redundant and tautological before moving on to the next observation.

  9. 5 out of 5

    Radu

    By his own admission in the book Dugin's Fourth Political Theory is not a complete theory in itself but rather provides the basis for the creation of an antithesis to the ubiquitous nature of globalism, liberalism and modernity. Essentially Dugin examines the three political theories of the 20th century (liberalism, communism/socialism, and fascism/national socialism) and extracts from them the positive qualities that promoted a functional society whilst distancing his Fourth Political Theory fr By his own admission in the book Dugin's Fourth Political Theory is not a complete theory in itself but rather provides the basis for the creation of an antithesis to the ubiquitous nature of globalism, liberalism and modernity. Essentially Dugin examines the three political theories of the 20th century (liberalism, communism/socialism, and fascism/national socialism) and extracts from them the positive qualities that promoted a functional society whilst distancing his Fourth Political Theory from the aberrant qualities in all three of them. At the same time he examines the cultural structures that led to the state of post-modernism with the intent of finding a way to create a political mindset that will lead beyond the current world paradigm through the concept of Daesin ("self-awareness"), as developed by Martin Heidegger, with the intent of using it to lead to the real-world manifestation of the Fourth Political Theory. The book is not an easy read, given the subject material, and Dugin can be somewhat long-winded in his elaboration of the esoteric of his concept, but it definitely provided a lot of food for thought.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Olivia

    What is perhaps initially most appealing about this publication – aside from the promise of an offer of a fresh, viable alternative to the present stagnant political void, this “end of history” in which we find ourselves – is the comprehensive critique of the prevailing liberal ideology from a perspective which neither wholly aligns itself with the traditional positions in opposition to liberalism, nor stations itself against these. See link for rest: http://traditionalbritain.org/content... What is perhaps initially most appealing about this publication – aside from the promise of an offer of a fresh, viable alternative to the present stagnant political void, this “end of history” in which we find ourselves – is the comprehensive critique of the prevailing liberal ideology from a perspective which neither wholly aligns itself with the traditional positions in opposition to liberalism, nor stations itself against these. See link for rest: http://traditionalbritain.org/content...

  11. 5 out of 5

    Martin Bassani

    Excellent criticism of the present with convincing arguments for action. I remain unconvinced by the proposed philosophical solution.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Joel

    Dugin is a Russian political theorist/philosopher/troublemaker and this book sketches his hazy theory. He names Liberalism, Fascism and Communism as the (failed) theories one, two and three. The Fourth Political Theory generally resists definition in a positive direction, and can only be approached via negativa, by what it is not. He writes: The Fourth Political Theory is the amalgamation of a common project and arises from a common impulse to everything that was discarded, toppled, and humiliat Dugin is a Russian political theorist/philosopher/troublemaker and this book sketches his hazy theory. He names Liberalism, Fascism and Communism as the (failed) theories one, two and three. The Fourth Political Theory generally resists definition in a positive direction, and can only be approached via negativa, by what it is not. He writes: The Fourth Political Theory is the amalgamation of a common project and arises from a common impulse to everything that was discarded, toppled, and humiliated during the course of constructing ‘the society of the spectacle’ (constructing postmodernity). ‘The stone that the builders -rejected has become the cornerstone'. The philosopher Alexander Sekatsky rightly pointed out the significance of ‘marginalia’ in the formation of a new philosophical age, suggesting the term ‘metaphysics of debris’ as a metaphor. Dugin's writing seems to have much in common with many postmodern texts, and yet he is keen to reject postmodernity and the liberal order entirely. Dugin wants to draw what is good from all previous political theories and reject elements that were bad. He praises pre-modern traditions, but does not seek the dominance of one or the other system of thought, but rather wants to see all these various cultures flourish at the expense of Western liberalism and the postmodern evacuation of meaning. He wants to reach back past the rationalism of late modernity and into the symbolic, ritualistic core of the monotheistic religions. He writes: Not only the highest supra-mental symbols of faith can be taken on board once again as a new shield, but so can those irrational aspects of cults, rites, and legends that have perplexed theologians in earlier ages. If we reject the idea of progress that is inherent in modernity (which as we have seen, has ended), then all that is ancient gains value and credibility for us simply by virtue of the fact that it is ancient. ‘Ancient’ means good, and the more ancient — the better. He does sound many postmodern notes however, such as: Societies can be compared, but we cannot state that any one of them is objectively better than the others. Such an assessment is always subjective, and any attempt to raise a subjective assessment to the status of a theory is racism. This type of an attempt is unscientific and inhumane. The differences between societies in any sense can, in no shape or form, imply the superiority of one over the other. Many call Dugin (and Vladimir Putin) fascists, but this is a bit facile. Dugin explicitly rejects the race-based dogma of fascism: The appalling consequences of this ideology (fascism) are too well known to dwell upon them. However, it was this original definition of a historical subject that was at the heart of the Nazis’ criminal practices. The definition of a historical subject is the fundamental basis for political ideology in general, and defines its structure. Therefore, in this matter, the Fourth Political Theory may act in the most radical way by rejecting all of these constructions as candidates for a historical subject. The historical subject is neither an individual, nor class, nor the state, nor race. This is the anthropological and the historical axiom of the Fourth Political Theory. And again: If we begin with fascism and National Socialism, then here we must definitively reject all forms of racism. Racism is what caused the collapse of National Socialism in the historical, geopolitical, and theoretical sense. This was not only a historical, but also a philosophical collapse. Racism is based on the belief in the innate objective superiority of one human race over another. It was racism, and not some other aspect of National Socialism, that brought about such consequences, leading to immeasurable suffering on both sides, as well as the collapse of Germany and the Axis powers, not to mention the destruction of the entire ideological project of the Third Way. The criminal practice of wiping out entire ethnic groups (Jews, gypsies, and Slavs) based on race was precisely rooted in their racial theory — this is what angers and shocks us about Nazism to this day. Dugin believes that the narrative of progress and enlightenment in the West is a myth, one that needs to be deconstructed. He writes: Émile Durkheim, Pitirim Sorokin, and Georges Gurvitch, the greatest sociologists of the Twentieth century, in essence the classicists of sociological thought, argued that social progress does not exist, in contrast to the Nineteenth-century sociologists, such as Auguste Comte or Herbert Spencer. Progress is not an objective social phenomenon, but rather, an artificial concept, a kind of scientifically formulated myth. Dugin pushes back against this myth of progress, again stressing a search for alternatives in more ancient traditions: The Fourth Political Theory must take a step toward the formulation of a coherent critique of the monotonic process. It must develop an alternative model of a conservative future, a conservative tomorrow, based on the principles of vitality, roots, constants, and eternity. While most of us assume that there is no going "backwards" towards feudalism or any other outmoded organization of society, Dugin says this is not the case: Societies can be variously built and transformed. The experience of the 1990s is quite demonstrative of this: people in the Soviet Union were sure that socialism would proceed from capitalism, not vice versa. But in the 1990s they saw the opposite: capitalism following socialism. It is quite possible that Russia could yet see feudalism, or even a slave-owning society, or perhaps a Communist or primordial society emerge after that. Those who laugh at this are the captives of the modern and its hypnosis. Having acknowledged the reversibility of political and historical time, we have arrived at a new pluralist point-of-view for political science, and we have reached the advanced perspective necessary for ideological construction. He says that the United States sees itself as the pinnacle of civilization, the logical end-point and culmination of the liberal tradition. The USA seeks to impose this order on the rest of the world: History is considered to be a univocal and monotone process of technological and social progress, the path of the growing liberation of individuals from all kinds of collective identities. Tradition and conservatism are thus regarded as obstacles to freedom and should be rejected. The USA is in the vanguard of this historical progress, and has the right, obligation, and historical mission to move history further and further along this path. The historical existence of the US coincides with the course of human history. So, ‘American’ means ‘universal’. The other cultures either have an American future or no future at all. What is this liberalism to which Dugin and the Fourth Political Theory are so opposed to? He defines liberalism as follows: • The understanding of the individual as the measure of all things; • Belief in the sacred character of private property; • The assertion of the equality of opportunity as the moral law of society; • Belief in the ‘contractual’ basis of all sociopolitical institutions, including governmental; • The abolition of any governmental, religious and social authorities who lay claim to ‘the common truth’; • The separation of powers and the making of social systems of control over any government institution whatsoever; • The creation of a civil society without races, peoples and religions in place of traditional governments; • The dominance of market relations over other forms of politics (the thesis: ‘economics is fate’); • Certainty that the historical path of Western peoples and countries is a universal model of development and progress for the entire world, which must, in an imperative order, be taken as the standard and pattern. The United States has propagated this liberalism to the world because it sees it as the only valid philosophical program for all nations. And in the course of time, this philosophy has morphed into a post-modern formula, which Dugin defines as: • The measure of things becomes not the individual, but the post-individual, ‘the dividual’, accidentally playing an ironic combination of parts of people (his organs, his clones, his simulacra — all the way up to cyborgs and mutants); • Private property is idolised, ‘transcendentalised’, and transforms from that which a man owns to that which owns the man; • Equality of opportunity turns into equality of the contemplation of opportunities (the society of the spectacle — Guy Debord); • Belief in the contractual character of all political and social institutions grows into an equalisation of the real and the virtual, and the world becomes a technical model; • All forms of non-individual authorities disappear altogether, and any individual is free to think about the world howsoever he sees fit (the crisis of common rationality); • The principle of the separation of powers transforms into the idea of a constant electronic referendum (a sort of electronic parliament), where each Internet user continually ‘votes’ on any decision by giving his opinion in any number of forums, which in turn cedes power to each individual citizen (each becoming, in effect, his own branch of government); ‘Civil society’ completely displaces government and converts into a global, cosmopolitan melting pot; • From the thesis ‘economy is destiny’ it takes up the thesis ‘the numerical code — that is destiny’, so far as work, money, the market, production, consumption — everything becomes virtual. Dugin advocates a global crusade against this philosophy, essentially against the United States: Only tearing it out by its roots can defeat this evil, and I do not exclude that such a victory will necessitate erasing from the face of the Earth those spiritual and physical halos from which arose the global heresy, which insists that ‘man is the measure of all things’. Only a global crusade against the US, the West, globalisation, and their political-ideological expression, liberalism, is capable of becoming an adequate response. The elaboration of the ideology of this Crusader campaign, undoubtedly, is a matter for Russia not to pursue alone, but together with all the world powers, who, in one way or another, oppose ‘the American century’. Nevertheless, in any case this ideology must begin with the recognition of the fatal role of liberalism, which has characterised the path of the West from the moment when it rejected the values of God and Tradition. He calls for Muslims, Christians and anyone else who values tradition against liberalism to join in this Crusade: Spiritually, globalisation is the creation of a grand parody, the kingdom of the Antichrist. And the United States is the centre of its expansion. American values pretend to be ‘universal’ ones. In reality, it is a new form of ideological aggression against the multiplicity of cultures and traditions still existing in the rest of the world. I am resolutely against Western values which are essentially modernist and postmodernist, and which are promulgated by the United States by force of arms or by obtrusion (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and perhaps soon, Syria and Iran) . Therefore, all traditionalists should be against the West and globalisation, as well as against the imperialist politics of the United States. It is the only logical and consequent position. So traditionalists and partisans of traditional principles and values should oppose the West and defend the Rest, if the Rest show signs of the conservation of Tradition, whether in part or in its entirety. There can be and there really exist people, in the West and even in the United States of America itself, who do not agree with the present state of affairs and do not approve of modernity and postmodernity. They are the defenders of the spiritual traditions of the pre-modern West. They should be with us in our common struggle. They should take part in our revolt against the modern and postmodern worlds. We would fight together against the common enemy. Does any of this matter? Well, Dugin appears to be influential with the new government of Greece, he has wielded influence in the Russian government and its invasion of the Ukraine, and he seeks allies in Europe and the United States, so it does behoove citizens of the West to pay attention to what he says. Some of his diagnosis of the ills of our nation and time are correct, but I fear that his solution to the problem will only be bloodshed and misery. It would be wise to approach his thought and his connections more systematically, and I hope that is occurring elsewhere.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Laura

    The Fourth Political Theory published by Arktos is a translation of several Russian originals which have been brought together and attached to the core of the original text. This might explain repetitions and lack of continuity: metaphysics in one chapter, practical politics in the next, something resembling a religious fervour in yet another. Throughout this work, the influence of other thinkers is clearly apparent. Heidegger and Spengler have left a deep mark on Dugin’s thought, and is likely The Fourth Political Theory published by Arktos is a translation of several Russian originals which have been brought together and attached to the core of the original text. This might explain repetitions and lack of continuity: metaphysics in one chapter, practical politics in the next, something resembling a religious fervour in yet another. Throughout this work, the influence of other thinkers is clearly apparent. Heidegger and Spengler have left a deep mark on Dugin’s thought, and is likely the reason Dugin chooses to interpret geopolitical change as a metaphysical event. Dugin has written, and Arktos has assembled, a book with a title suggesting new answers, while the clear intent of the book is to beg new questions. This is not the work of a fascist thinker, despite all attempts to label Dugin as one; Dugin is indebted to Traditionalist and radical conservative thinkers like Evola, Spengler, E.J. Jung, Moeller van den Bruck, etc. but doesn't deny the influence of Deleuze, Baudrillard and Derrida. Dugin’s direct definitions can be esoteric, such as his declaration that “at the heart of the Fourth Political Theory, is its magnetic centre, lies the trajector of the approaching Ereignis (the ‘Event’), which will embody the triumphant return of Being, at the exact moment when mankind forgets about it, once and for all, to the point that the last traces of it disappear”. While Dugin gives some explanation of the Heideggerian Ereignis, he does not sufficiently explain how this is different than any other apocalyptic theory and, more importantly, he is never explicit about what exactly is meant by Being and why it has significance in the political sphere. It's not a dangerous book, despite being banned by Amazon, but you may end up reconsidering common assumptions about modernity and go back to reading Plato's political philosophy to untangle all the threads thrown up on the air by Dugin.

  14. 5 out of 5

    Halvor (Raknes)

    I was deeply impressed by the vastness of scope of which Dugin engaged in his analysis, his thorough understanding of the various ideologies he addresses and not least his ability for creative and sound synthesis when devising his fourth political theory. I've read a much outspoken commentator here in Norway refer to it as superficial. Nothong could be further from reality and only shows the ridiculousness and baseness of the current russophobic political climate in the West. Still, I challenge D I was deeply impressed by the vastness of scope of which Dugin engaged in his analysis, his thorough understanding of the various ideologies he addresses and not least his ability for creative and sound synthesis when devising his fourth political theory. I've read a much outspoken commentator here in Norway refer to it as superficial. Nothong could be further from reality and only shows the ridiculousness and baseness of the current russophobic political climate in the West. Still, I challenge Dugin on his religion, where he seems simply to align himself with the Russian Orthodox church. And I think that is a wanting position for a man who goes as deeply into the ideologies that rule our times as he does. One simply cannot do that without a well thought out religious world-view, and Dugin seems at the very least reticent when it comes to addressing religious subjects. That is untenable and unsustainable, and the future may divulge a religious thinker that doesn't quite measure up to his political and ideological standing. The latter two in my opinion unsurpassed in today's civilizational discourse.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Tony

    An ultimately worthwhile read This work is really more worthy of three stars. I, however, have given it four stars because of singularly brilliant ideas... flashes of great insight that unfortunately quickly dim. It is so very unfortunate that the author upon completing what is to be a crisp, valid explanation lapses into a needlessly complex and opaque discussion that thoroughly takes away from his original point. It is difficult as an American to read a book filled with so many anti-American ra An ultimately worthwhile read This work is really more worthy of three stars. I, however, have given it four stars because of singularly brilliant ideas... flashes of great insight that unfortunately quickly dim. It is so very unfortunate that the author upon completing what is to be a crisp, valid explanation lapses into a needlessly complex and opaque discussion that thoroughly takes away from his original point. It is difficult as an American to read a book filled with so many anti-American rants . It is necessary as an educated person (or at least who is striving to be) to hear differing points of view. At the conclusion of this book, I am more aware of the weaknesses, and potential strengths yet to be developed, of the Western culture of liberalism. However, the so-called fourth political theory as it stands currently does not seem to me to pose any challenge to the West at any point in the intermediate future.

  16. 5 out of 5

    Colin

    By his own admission, Dugin is far too educated to believe what he espouses in this book. The frothing contempt he fails to mask behind these pages reveals a child throwing a tantrum at being denied by a responsible adult. We have seen this activity before from his own country's history. Dugin has merely repackaged the Narodnost movement for a new age. https://lucidink.home.blog/2019/01/16... By his own admission, Dugin is far too educated to believe what he espouses in this book. The frothing contempt he fails to mask behind these pages reveals a child throwing a tantrum at being denied by a responsible adult. We have seen this activity before from his own country's history. Dugin has merely repackaged the Narodnost movement for a new age. https://lucidink.home.blog/2019/01/16...

  17. 4 out of 5

    Leo deSouza

    Whats does this book makes clear? Nothing. The only thing you can really get from it is that Russian soul is and will keep anti-west liberalism/capitalism. And there is no way to change that. Besides, it only throw a lot of doubts about the future of Russia and what its leaders are really planning. Only time will tell. PS: I'm not saying the book it bad.

  18. 5 out of 5

    Matty

    I cannot say enough good things about this book. Dugin is undeniably brilliant whether you agree with his views or not. Dugin thoroughly outlines his views on the basis of the Fourth Political Theory and does so in a comprehensive and cogent manner. I cannot recommend this book highly enough.

  19. 4 out of 5

    Matt

    Dugin’s analysis of liberalism and post-modernism is spot on and refreshing. However his solutions in the Fourth Political Theory are lacking. Nevertheless this is an important read to make sense of the modern political landscape, particularly from a Russian point of view.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Ibn'S

    a timely reading on current geopolitical shifts we are living on.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Paul

    “How deeply one sympathizes with the Russians when one encounters the realities of the lives of the people and not the propagandistic pretensions of their government.” - George Kennan, ‘Memoirs: 1925-1950’ The next person in line approaches the window. He’s here with his family, for his daughter, who just turned five. She smiles at me. His wife is Russian but speaks with some tri-state accent, maybe Staten Island. They turn to sit down. I call him back to the window. I ask him where he’s from. I k “How deeply one sympathizes with the Russians when one encounters the realities of the lives of the people and not the propagandistic pretensions of their government.” - George Kennan, ‘Memoirs: 1925-1950’ The next person in line approaches the window. He’s here with his family, for his daughter, who just turned five. She smiles at me. His wife is Russian but speaks with some tri-state accent, maybe Staten Island. They turn to sit down. I call him back to the window. I ask him where he’s from. I know the answer is “New Jersey.” I ask him where he went to high school, he says somewhere in Bergen county. I smile briefly, notice that he is deathly serious in his mannerisms, and my face contorts accordingly. I know he is some kind of dangerous person. I ask him what he’s doing in Russia, he says that he’s here with his family. I ask him where he works, he says he is an English teacher. I push him to answer why he doesn’t move back to the U.S., he doesn’t answer. I step away to speak with my manager. I return five minutes later and wish him goodbye. ——————————————- When I was in Ukraine, in Donetsk in 2013-14 and witnessing the madness going on around me, I stubbornly visited my favorite cafes and met with my friends as if to insist through my habits that life would return to normal and the Russian separatists/invaders would disappear. As much as I sat at those cafes, life never went back to normal and I was forced to leave sooner than planned. As the war claimed more and more lives in eastern Ukraine, I wondered, knowing that it was all for nothing, what would ignite in the soul of a 21-year-old Russian the desire to fight in an undeclared war in a foreign, yet familiar country for an obtuse purpose. Having read interviews with wounded regular Russian soldiers who claimed they were fulfilling orders of their superiors by fighting in Ukraine, I feel certain that few of them have actually heard of Alexander Dugin, let alone read any of his work. I feel happy for them that they have not read oppressive books like the ones Dugin writes, because reading this book (in original Russian) was at times exhausting. It was exhausting because Dugin is clearly a well-read individual and has the capacity to draw the reader into agreeing with his discourse on the west and how much of the motives of American interventionism are veiled attempts to implement U.S. strategic foreign policy goals under the guise of “supporting democratic initiatives.” Sometimes, after Dugin makes a great point, sometimes in the very next sentence, I found myself disgusted by his conclusions, if not simply baffled. Yes, empires still exist, yes, sometimes things get done more efficiently with a more authoritarian government. Wait a second. Did you just suggest that minority ethnicities are always destined to be subsumed by majority ones? That may or may not be true, but is it something we should all encourage and hope for? Did you just say that MTV is responsible for the moral ills in the world right now? This was written in 2010, to me it seems a little banal to blame cable TV for....Wait, did you just accuse surfers of corrupting world youth? Like, people on surfboards? Tskhinvali is the capital of South Ossetia. Dugin asserts that the world changed in 2008, after the Russian military, provoked into war against Georgia, repealed a Georgian offense and pushed them nearly all the way back to Tbilisi, in the name of saving the South Ossetians and marking their territory, as if to draw a line to the U.S. to say, “this is where you stop, this is our space.” Prior to this, Russian leaders were “under the spell of the liberal political theory” and were presumably too afraid to “stand up for their values.” When seen through this prism, wars in Georgia and Ukraine, support for anti-western regimes in Belarus, Moldova, support for breakaway regions and republics in Europe, agitating in western countries against pro-EU and pro-NATO political parties and initiatives all make sense. Dugin is an unabashed supporter of the idea of Russian hegemony in a reimagined Russian empire which he labels “Eurasia,” and the theory he espouses, “Eurasianism,” is just a label for that new Russian empire in his head. Russia could be ruled by a king or a dictator and Dugin would be fine with either, as long as the country remained in its role as a world superpower. Dugin is a fascist in the broadest sense of the word; he is a supporter of an authoritarian, ultranationalist project in Russia that celebrates dictatorship (Putin, even though he is mildly criticized in this book) and promotes the strict regimentation of society. To call “Eurasianism” a political theory misses the mark; it’s actually a political project that has slowly been realizing itself since this book was published. “The Fourth Political Theory” is not a book promoting a theory that will actually improve the quality of any individual person’s life (Dugin eschews individual freedoms). It is a book, however, that must be read by anyone wishing to understand the most deranged, paranoid sort of political views a person, Russian or otherwise, might hold of the world around him.

  22. 5 out of 5

    Βασίλειος

    The Fourth Political Theory serves more as a collection of philosophical and political essays to make you think about the future of politics, rather than a manifesto on the fourth political theory. However, Mr. Dugin gives us a detailed analysis of what the fourth political theory isn’t. He makes some interesting observations about modernity and postmodernity. In his analysis of modernity he views Capitalism, Marxism and National Socialism as basically three variants of the same mentality - creat The Fourth Political Theory serves more as a collection of philosophical and political essays to make you think about the future of politics, rather than a manifesto on the fourth political theory. However, Mr. Dugin gives us a detailed analysis of what the fourth political theory isn’t. He makes some interesting observations about modernity and postmodernity. In his analysis of modernity he views Capitalism, Marxism and National Socialism as basically three variants of the same mentality - created by racist western men, as an alternative to traditionalism. The term racism here is used more as in discrimination (against the poor, against the rich, against a specific race or nationality, against “the uncivilized”, against the unmodernized etc.). As for postmodernity, he views it is a potential absurdist dystopia, where dementia and transhumanism are the norm. However postmodernity is not yet defined and can still be molded. Alexandr Dugin goes on to completely reject modernity, liberalism and social evolution. What’s the alternative? Well… he never clearly states that. He simply proposes the creation of a multipolar world, where most things are left open for debate. In summary the overall idea of this book is as follows: During the Cold War the world was bipolar. After the fall of the Soviet Union the world has become unipolar, with the USA imposing its ideals (liberalism, democracy, human rights) on everyone else [described as “the end of history”]. There are many who oppose the globalizing policies of the USA, but they are too small and too diverse to prevail (Muslims, Communists, Nationalists etc.). The solution is to create a multipolar world where power is balanced and ideologies are not imposed on others; where every nation has the right to choose its own identity and its own reality. I guess this is, more or less, the idea behind the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, as well as Eurasianism in general. Now perhaps you understand why this man has been labeled as the “most dangerous philosopher of our time” by the western media and academia.

  23. 4 out of 5

    David

    This book is a difficult one...not to read and understand but because it is a pain for the corporate globalists who are running most countries today. As bad as corporate capitalism is its benefits are undeniable...and it is the ideology to survive the dust-up of the 20th Century between Liberalism, Communism, and Fascism. The author, however, is attempting to come up with a new, or fourth, political theory that will attempt to return the world to history...hopefully not 20th Century history...an This book is a difficult one...not to read and understand but because it is a pain for the corporate globalists who are running most countries today. As bad as corporate capitalism is its benefits are undeniable...and it is the ideology to survive the dust-up of the 20th Century between Liberalism, Communism, and Fascism. The author, however, is attempting to come up with a new, or fourth, political theory that will attempt to return the world to history...hopefully not 20th Century history...and in so doing deal will the psychological malaise of Liberalism/Postmodernism that appears to be severely fraying about the edges: Trump, Brexit, global populist movements (on both Right and Left). The Fourth Political Theory goes beyond a simple intellectual exercise because it has informed the policies of Russia and the functions as an ideological infrastructure for the European Right. Eurasianism is one expression of this, Russia inhabits a space separate political/cultural territory from both Europe & Asia, but the nebulous theory of The Fourth Political Theory does not fully flesh out, to this reviewer, what it is. One should not expect it to because this book simply wants to lay the critical foundations for a deeper exploration of the subject. Even if the book is imprecise it is an interesting read because it explores the political underpinnings of Russia today as inhabiting a psychic space between Europe and Asia and explains why Russia will, probably, never be a member of what appears, as of this writing, to be the dying European Union. Worth a read, not least because it is a shortish book...occasionally a bit of a slog but worth the effort even if readers do not agree with its direction or provisional conclusions. Rating: 4 out of 5 Stars

  24. 4 out of 5

    Sami Eerola

    This is the best far-right book that i have read. Not because i agree with its ideas, but because Dugin actually studied all three political theories of Western philosophy and presents pretty coherent critics about each of them. Also the translation is very good and i actually enjoyed reading about different ideas and criticism of our modern society. I actually felt that i was learning something new and not just torturing myself, like i so often feel, when i read far-right literature. The bigges This is the best far-right book that i have read. Not because i agree with its ideas, but because Dugin actually studied all three political theories of Western philosophy and presents pretty coherent critics about each of them. Also the translation is very good and i actually enjoyed reading about different ideas and criticism of our modern society. I actually felt that i was learning something new and not just torturing myself, like i so often feel, when i read far-right literature. The biggest problem in this book is that Dugin does not explain why homosexuality is bad. He just calls LGBTQ-people "perverts" and assumes that the reader hates them too. Then he defines racism in such a weird way, that wanting ethnically pure societies is not racist, but fighting racisms is. Like so many ideological manifestos, this book is great on criticising liberalism and postmodernity, but very poor on alternatives. The fourth political theory is just a collection of reactionary ideas mixed with Socialist economic policies. The haziness explains why no one actually takes Dugins ideas seriously. The only thing that is concrete in this book is Dugin's outline of a united left and right global front against liberalism and US hegemony. This is the core of Vladimir Putin's external policy of hybrid warfare. But like so many neo-Nazis and alt-righters that have said to admire Dugin, Putin does not believe in the fourth political theory. Dugin's ideas are just a justification for ultra nationalism and reactionary ideas, packaged in a "new" ideology that is not quote fascism or socialism, but still feels familiar.

  25. 4 out of 5

    Ian

    As someone who hadn't read neither Heidegger or Spengler I couldn't understand the book in it's completude. However, not being illiterate in politics or philosophy I have some notes worth of sharing. First of all, the book in itself seemed more like a collection of texts based on his ideology than a coherent work, with chapters going from one topic to another without a decent transition. Second, his critique even though well fundamented don't reach any reasonable conclusion. Instead he follows a s As someone who hadn't read neither Heidegger or Spengler I couldn't understand the book in it's completude. However, not being illiterate in politics or philosophy I have some notes worth of sharing. First of all, the book in itself seemed more like a collection of texts based on his ideology than a coherent work, with chapters going from one topic to another without a decent transition. Second, his critique even though well fundamented don't reach any reasonable conclusion. Instead he follows a strange logic where "it isn't modern, therefore it is good". At some parts he seems to discard entire concepts with the sole argument that they were modern. And at least he don't really seems to dive in the third position as he does in liberalism or even marxism (that too was left mostly untouched). His entire point against fascism is that it is racist, therefore it is wrong. A point worth of TV and magazines, but not of someone who's job is to dismantle and criticize its core components, something he only does with liberalism. But to do justice to Dugin's work I must point that some of his ideas are worth of being noticed, most important the critique of liberalism and his "negation of history". His book is an important step in negating the core ideas of our age, by denying the core components of the ruling ideology he bring some fresh air in the saturated political work of our age. Surely his work has some value, unfortunately he wasn't up to the job he pretended to do.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Levi Borba

    While Mr. Dugin is correct in many of his critics of the main political systems of the XX century (socialism, fascism and liberalism), and for those critics i gave those 2 stars, from the moment that he starts to build his 4th political theory everything goes down. Not only it is a humonguous amount of wishful thinking (like a giant alliance between national powers that historically are hostile towards each other and have almost nothing in common), but also in the absurd amount of relativisms tha While Mr. Dugin is correct in many of his critics of the main political systems of the XX century (socialism, fascism and liberalism), and for those critics i gave those 2 stars, from the moment that he starts to build his 4th political theory everything goes down. Not only it is a humonguous amount of wishful thinking (like a giant alliance between national powers that historically are hostile towards each other and have almost nothing in common), but also in the absurd amount of relativisms that at some point just make his entire book sounds like a near-insane gibberish.

  27. 4 out of 5

    Jack Clare

    interesting read, though i disagree with quite a bit of it.

  28. 5 out of 5

    Shawn

    hail putin, our lord and savior of the slavic people

  29. 4 out of 5

    Michel Ortega

    This is a great book to get a new view of the times we are living in. The insight given by the author is a new way of thinking about the present and future of society.

  30. 5 out of 5

    Paul O'Leary

    Once upon a time, before television and the internet, there had been in European history a fairly regular battle of the ideologies. Much attention, entertainment and wagering surrounded these fights. The oldest of the fighters was Liberalism. He had all the benefits of stern, scientific, and austere training; he generally packed the seats and was always good for the box office window. He was always an icon for "the better sort of folks" in society. The fighter of the people, though, was Communis Once upon a time, before television and the internet, there had been in European history a fairly regular battle of the ideologies. Much attention, entertainment and wagering surrounded these fights. The oldest of the fighters was Liberalism. He had all the benefits of stern, scientific, and austere training; he generally packed the seats and was always good for the box office window. He was always an icon for "the better sort of folks" in society. The fighter of the people, though, was Communism. His fans were not of the better classes, but intensely loyal. He had an uppercut that would rise up from way down below which, if connected, would level most opponents. Despite his popularity, those of his draw spent little on "fringes" at his events and were prone to vulgar disruptions in the audience. The young upstart that occasionally was confused with this last fighter in appearance was Fascism. His stylistic rapid-fire delivery of punches was a sight to witness. His popularity was almost immediate, but ultimately fleeting as he was KO'd by both Liberalism and Communism early in his career, ending a potentially earth shattering ascendency in the pugilistic world of politics. Communism eventually succumbed to the older boxer, after plentiful rematches, leaving Liberalism at last uncontested as the only fighter left in the ring. Dugin, political guru, former street-sweeper, and self-ordained trainer for a Challenger of the future, wants to bring political boxing back to Friday nights. His boxer, in his theory at least, will offer the best skills of all the others from the past, while throwing aside all of their negative attributes. Liberalism prompts the least respect and enthusiasm from Dugin, but as he's the only boxer left in the ring and Dugin's(or should I say, his theoretical champion's) only opponent, this is quite natural. Dugin is displeased with Liberalism individualistic style, considering it mere commercial showboating, completely unsuited for a Russian audience; though Liberalism's freedom of movement holds some appeal for the Russian trainer. Dugin's approach is to mine the vitality and popularity of both Fascism and Communism for the expected grand win over Liberalism that will crown his Fourth Political Theory in the political arena. Other than stealing from ideologies of the past for the future, little is put forth as to the pragmatic benefits of his political champion other than a deeply religious Heideggerian obsession with the Dasein(or being there). This is a very tedious book to read. Dugin drops names to show he's read his share of political tomes. Unfortunately, this doesn't translate into a viable blueprint for an authentic "fourth" political theory. Quite frankly, it merely smells of Fascism after a day at the spa and an Heidegger lecture albeit wearing different colored trunks.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...
We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy.