They say about 51-year-old Alexander Dugin that he is a Russian public figure, philosopher, political scientist and sociologist. And most importantly - the “father of neo-Eurasianism,” a political, economic, philosophical and ideological concept aimed at creating a Eurasian superpower. Of course, Russia should be at the center of it, which simply has to re-integrate with the former Soviet republics of the USSR and all those who wish to create another pole of power in the modern world. The conventional name of the superpower is the Eurasian Union (EAU). Feel how hot?
This idea makes Dugin related to another modern collector of Russian lands, Russian President Vladimir Putin. But Dugin, sincerely supporting the Russian president, nevertheless, believes that he is moving towards his dream too slowly. About this, in fact, and even about many other things, and the conversation.
Alexander Gelevich, let's start with the most current. Recently Boris Berezovsky passed away, and many believe that a certain era has ended, and the political история Russia may enter into some new stage. Is it so? Was Berezovsky so significant? And whether it was the focus, for example, dashing 90-x, unbridled liberalism? Was he an enemy capable of blowing up, destroying, undermining the system in Russia?
You know, I think that, first, Berezovsky was a symbolic figure. This is the most important thing. And his end, in my opinion, embodies a kind of inglorious end of an inglorious period. That's how there is Tarantino's "inglorious bastards", so there are inglorious 90-e, in my opinion, gave rise to freaks who at one time got into the price, and then died. And the death of Berezovsky is the death of the whole of such a complex of affects, pathos. These were actually quite average late Soviet people who possessed a certain degree of radical hooliganism. And being in the Soviet period, they would either just become quiet in this radical hooliganism, or find their place. They are mishugin ("mishugeny", "mishugin" comes from the Hebrew word "mesagah", which means crazy, psycho. - Auth.) Such. 90 is the time of the mice, so to speak. It cannot be said that fools, but such strange atypical people who do not fit into society.
They are not Lenin useful idiots? Or is it anybody's useless idiots? ..
No, no, these are mishugin. Here, you know, in school there are people who occasionally dance in the classroom, shout out, have a little bit of strange abilities. They may appear in some brightness, but this is rare. As a rule, they later become subdued gradually, becoming ordinary people. Or become such untouchables outcasts. Here in the 90-s, these inglorious freaks were in the spotlight. And so Berezovsky, in my opinion, embodied such an inglorious bastard. And now the inglorious death of an inglorious bastard happened. In the Tarantine sense. But I want to emphasize that Tarantino's inglorious bastards are positive, in general, characters. So when I say that this is the inglorious death of an inglorious bastard, I do not mean anything bad. Although nothing good, too, of course. But that's why it seems to me that Berezovsky is a symbolic figure. Such people became the focus of 90's, they set the economic, political, aesthetic, cultural agenda. This is the type of sharp, risky, slightly unbalanced extravagant people. Of course, other племshuginy belong to this tribe - from Sergey Polonsky * to Vladimir Zhirinovsky. Typical mishugin, who also scream, fall, fight in hysterics. And, despite such a move, not only on the verge of a foul, but even beyond the limits of a foul, they win. They can change the sex, they can give up some business, rob everyone, kill them - they get away with it until a certain moment. Here 90-e years it was such a period, which was embodied ...
Oligarchs are almost all like that. These are people with a certain damaged gene. That is, this is actually a tribe of lucky inglorious bastards. And the death of Berezovsky is, in my opinion, the end of this era in a symbolic sense. From the point of view of significance. The second question - of course, he was an influential Russian politician, because in the period when such laws were dominant, and he was among these types, like a fish in water, in fact, he then ruled. But gradually during his struggle with Putin - she is also very symbolic - it turned out that the time of this type of politicians is running out. It went away gradually, not immediately, Berezovsky tried to be noted in Ukraine, to become in the same style. He called, shouted: “Julia, attack! Grab it! Fuck Kill me Cut it! Capture! ” He participated in abrupt adventures, sent here his guard of sixes ...
Yes, 30 million gave to the "orange revolution" ...
Maybe he did. And, maybe, somewhere on the contrary took. In general, such an indefinite person was. In any case, he was noted somehow very seriously in Ukraine. But joining the fight against Putin ... It was a battle of two epochs: the epoch of inglorious bastards and an epoch of more sane, maybe more predictable, more practical, certainly more rational, without corrupted genes of bureaucrats — pragmatists and realists. That is, inglorious bastards against realists - it was, I think, the 2000's party, and I must say that according to the results of this party, those who wanted to return the era of their heyday - 90-e, lost completely. Lost completely, totally, in all respects. And the circumstances of Berezovsky’s death are symbolic in this sense.
But will it give something for Russia now? Many say that now some new stage may come, and at the same time everyone notes that Putin himself, who supposedly must feel himself a winner, firstly, does not very wisely comment on death. Secondly, he himself, they say, also goes out of fashion in Russia. What happened? Why?
I now think that the symbolic action often does not coincide with the real action. This is the end of an epoch, and the circumstances of Berezovsky’s death are not just an event, but some sort of summing up. His repentance, his ruin, his sadness, his repentance with these letters - all went to the fact that he admitted his defeat. This is his era recognized defeat. The oligarchs admitted defeat. Mishugin recognized defeat. In fact, in Russia, infamous bastards on the first roles of the place are no longer allotted. And this is not due to the fact that Berezovsky died - he died because there is no such place for him. Therefore, accordingly, the fact that he died practically does not affect anything anymore. He went away with such a loser, a fatal loser. And even if, they say, he hid some billions, it does not matter. He is an image. We live in a world of images, images. He died a loser, ravaged and broken, crushed, retreated and abandoned his struggle. And accordingly he died, because this era is over. Therefore, it cannot be said that something will change now. In fact, his death has put an end to the changes that have already occurred, which are already behind, and not ahead.
Because if before someone thought something, he was still hoping for a rematch of the "orange", for the return of dashing 90's, for some Marshes, for some attempts to return such an exotic policy of 90's, then today understand: everything is the end.
But what next?
But further, it seems to me, the most interesting. The fact that Putin won is actually how zero wins against a minus. That is, such realism, predictability, calmness, methodicalness on the background of simply utterly utter cretins, oligophrenics who dance, jump, scandal and spit, kick their feet, kill, break all the rules of decency, are already a victory. Above what Berezovsky embody, this whole oligarchy is the “Echo of Moscow”, this “orange” revolution. Above this kind of obscenity, which was put in place by the police. Well, now there are policemen who stopped the hooligans who have unleashed, some completely insolent scum. So, what is next? What, these police will create a new state?
But after all the platform is cleared ...
Of course, it is clear that those who claimed to set the agenda in Russia, in Ukraine (and this was a similar type - extravagant, unbalanced, risky rogues), are in fact placed where they care. Someone in a psychiatric hospital, someone in the next world, who is in prison or on the periphery of life There was a normalization, that is, a transition from a completely violent phase to a not so soft, but just normal, banality. What's next? Banality is great compared to the anomaly. And her resource is quite large. It’s like, for example, at home: if you mix everything up and then put it on the shelves, there will be a sense of order. The first time it produces an euphoric effect, and then you get used to it, because everything is the same: nothing new, just the old is put in order. Therefore, I think that in Russia the attitude towards the respite is positive, but if we talk about further prospects, one cannot argue that Berezovsky was hindering something. In recent years, he did not influence anything, did not interfere with anything, he could not do anything. All of his initiatives ended in complete failure. All of his courtyards, which he financed and podnachal, all ran away from him - Dorenki, Belkovskys, even Limonov. Well, everyone whom he fed, all his subordinates splashed to the sides. Who ran to Surkov, who to Putin, who was just looking for some new people. Nothing left of them. All of his guard - in fact, they were Berezovsky’s sixes - she’s all absorbed. Therefore, once again I repeat, his departure will not really affect anything. This is a complete failure. But now the question "what to do next?" Remains. This is where a very serious moment really arises. In Russia, and I think that in a similar situation in Ukraine, it is quite clear that neither Putin, nor, all the more, Yanukovych has any real positive program for further transformations. They normalized the situation, they stopped the madhouse, but ...
In Ukraine, this is also called "stability" ...
Yes, this is probably stability. And we, too, this is stability. Or realism. I think this is very similar to realism. That is, an extremely distorted picture of the world, painful, returns to a certain normal stage. But is a normal picture sufficient for further historical existence? In some cases, when there are stable traditions, a well-traveled path of movement, goals are defined, there is institutional continuity, that is enough. For example, in France, President Francois Hollande is just a clerk. You look at the French president - exactly "Mr. Zero", "Monsieur Zero". But since everything is predetermined, state institutions, democratic systems work, one can choose between one and the other, but something is only slightly different, then stability is good. That is, you can submit to the Brussels bureaucracy some kind of request to support the French peasants a little, but you can not. You can put ten people from one demonstration and then immediately let go, apologizing, but you can put eight or not at all. That's all the freedom of action for Hollande. And little is changing for the future. And in our countries - in Russia and Ukraine - there is generally complete uncertainty about the future. Identity is incomprehensible, and the place in the world is incomprehensible, and the place in the region is incomprehensible, and the role, and functions, and what to do, and the system, and ideology — nothing is clear. And whether there are enough normal, sane, rational people to answer these questions - this, I think, is an open topic.
Nevertheless, Vladimir Putin proposes the Eurasian Union 2015 of the year ...
A good idea.
This is your idea of neo-Eurasianism, the movement is not to the west, to liberalism, but a movement to the east, to Turanian cultures, and the creation of a certain, let's say, the USSR, only at a new historical stage. Are you close with Putin in this issue?
But you criticized him very much and also said that stabilization is good, but what next? And then he, they say, does not offer. What could you advise him? How do you see Eurasianism, as they say, in the flesh - in state institutions, political parties, cultural structures, ideology, philosophy?
This is a very good question. I even had an article “Putin and the Void”. The fact that just this void can sooner or later make him far. And of course, his surroundings, and he himself, understand this, that Russia today really needs big ideas, big projects. And Eurasianism is a big project, a very serious project. But this is not a question: to lead not to Europe, but to Turan. Here, rather, the other is the desire to justify the originality of Russian civilization. This is much more important. Because when we say “Eurasianism,” when it is contrasted with European action, we see that we are not Europe. But in fact, with the same success, we can say that we are not Asia. Because Eurasianism is not Europe and not Asia. If we say “not Europe”, we somehow forget that “not Asia” too. Asia is Islam, this is China, this is India, this is absolutely not what Russia needs. Europe is aggressive, claims to universalism, but it is close. Therefore, when we say "not Europe", all hear it. And when we say “not Asia”, no one hears this, since Asia is a little far away, it is accordingly not so close. Therefore, I repeat: Eurasianism is not Europe and not Asia, but at the same time Eurasianism is both Europe and Asia.
And it is not by chance that Putin speaks - the Eurasian empire from Lisbon to Vladivostok. This is a specific reorganization of the world space on a multipolar basis, when the world will not be pressed only by the West with its universal values. This is no longer possible, and everyone already understands this now. The West itself understands that it does not pull globalization and is unable to fully assimilate those cultures and civilizations, those billions of people who have different value identities, other attitudes, and so on. Even Europe itself collapses, with Greece, with Cyprus, what is happening. And this is significant, because it is obvious that the Western universalist global project has failed. And here the question arises: can we, the Russians, take advantage of this window of opportunity when the Western unipolar moment turns out to be untenable? And Putin quite logically suggests today the only way out - Eurasian integration. That is, the creation of a certain new civilization, the meaning of which is to integrate these strategic spaces under a new model, creating a new pole of a multipolar world. See how Putin does it. He does this pragmatically, based on available resources. And maybe it will be spectacular, effective. I’m not really convinced of the complete failure of this idea, because I am the author of this Eurasian idea ...
What is missing Putin?
Historical temperament, historical scale. If we continue what has already been said: one inglorious bastard died, the others retreated, somewhere they live, and a normal person remains in power. It is very good. But historical deed is not a matter of normal people, it is a matter of great people. Historical deed is also an anomaly, but with a plus sign. This is a matter of major, serious historical figures. Because to unite Eurasia, to create a special civilization space here, on the territory of the mainland, to contribute to the construction of a multipolar world is not a task for average people. This is a challenge for great people. Now Putin is facing a very fundamental internal problem: he solved the technical problem, he normalized the situation, showed that he knows how to cope with it and will cope with it. But the main question is relevant here: is he able to really get up to the same level with history, with the demand of history? He proclaimed the Eurasian Union, but does he understand what he will have to deal with? Did he realize what difficulties would immediately arise before him? And what efforts need to be applied to implement it? And what kind of tension will be required from Russia and from our foreign and domestic policy?
Well, in your opinion, does Putin understand all this?
What he is doing now, in the third term, is absolutely adequate, absolutely correct. This is the only thing that can be done. And I do not even exclude what he does in spite of himself. He would just like to deal with Russia, with what he gets, for example, one thief in ten years to change to another thief. This is his great work, and he does not allow the country to disintegrate. Everything is doing positively, but in general it is all so gradually that it is clear that we will never get to great history like that. But if we do not turn on the story now, but simply move inertially, then at some point the situation will become critical. Today begins another stage, in my opinion. That used to be good, average and bad. And while the bad predominated, the average was almost the same as the good. Average with good made a pact against bad. So what? Look, the dead Viktor Tsoi: we are waiting for change. What kind of change? To share the property of the wife and lover of Berezovsky? For these changes fought? For scum, for "Evening Urgant," for the fat Tsekalo, for these half-corpses, for all this twilight consciousness, did people destroy the country, its social system? This is just nonsense. This is a sentence. What we have now in Russia, in Ukraine, is a sentence to those hopes that fed people in the era of perestroika and reforms. Obviously, it was a horror, a catastrophe, a daze. This we understood. Today we are gradually moving to an average level, and here it seems, I think, a new dilemma - good or average. And this is the average that, thanks to Putin, is guaranteed and secured. And thanks to Putin. Because, in principle, turn everything a little differently, convince him to give power to Dmitry Medvedev for a second term, and again Berezovsky would be. Again, all these mishuginy would return. Again, Yushchenko with this unforgettable face would re-shine. Everything was on the verge, in the balance, but Putin has returned, and now it is clear that he has returned forever. Further, he will already beat this realistic system of his into granite. Just because he will never leave. But then a new problem. Does Russia have a truly great project? Does it, for example, have a project for Europe, for the East, for America, for the near abroad?
Putin also proposes to start EurAsEC.
Good design. This project is excellent, it is the only thing that can and should be offered. But how does he offer it? While he offers it at the level of integration of bodies.
He has the first step - the Customs Union of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan ...
It is very good. The Customs Union is a great ideological idea. If you remember what the customs union in Germany led to in the 19th century, it was authored by Friedrich Liszt, a theorist. In 1815-1848, it led to the creation of an entirely new economic and political situation in Europe. The current Customs Union is fundamental. But I'm talking about something else. So far, what Putin is offering is wonderful. And every action in this direction, any small movement is a historical success. But Putin, I think, has a bodily vision. Like Epicurus, for example. He believes that the population is a collection of material objects that need to be fed, to give them the opportunity to move, to make sure that the roof does not flow, that they can buy a ticket for the tram, that they have the opportunity to go somewhere, so that they do not cross. the street turned a red light, didn’t shout, didn’t do any stupid actions, behaved decently. That is, it is - the physical world. Similarly, Putin proposes to unite the post-Soviet space - materially. For example, Ukraine: something she does not want to do - turned off the valve, unscrewed. Why twisted? The gas is small, it is cold - the body begins to tremble, it makes concessions. That is, this policy tel. Putin, as with the Russians, treats positively, does not want to torture them, but, on the contrary, wants them to more or less exist, and he does the same with the post-Soviet space. And in some way he is right.
And what should you do?
I repeat: I believe that Putin is now at the level of integration of bodies: the Customs Union, the economy, EurAsEC, has turned it on and off, pressed, released, offered. That is, everything is still at the level of specific bodily realities. And I think we need to move on to the politics of souls.
How is it?
That is, to pay attention to the fact that a person consists, of course, of the body and that this is probably the simplest. He gave the head - the man fell, then extended his hand to him - he stood up. It is very pure, outwardly, although you can learn to control it: hot, too hot - bad, too cold - too bad. But found an acceptable average temperature - and hold. It is like a boiler room job. And today, at this level, such a “work of a boiler room” is doing very well for Russia. But there is still a human soul. Consequently, then there is still the politics of souls, there is the politics of world history. There is a policy of certain historical ideas that are embodied in the West. And there is the identity of the post-Soviet space, there is the identity of the Russian, there are some spiritual needs that are beginning to rise in a certain way. And all these requests need to be given some kind of answer. Must appear spiritual Eurasianism. Putin is now engaged in bodily Eurasianism, bodily Customs Union, bodily integration, bodily rebirth of Russia. The Russian body is being revived. Not that it is being revived, but at least it is being restored to normal. This is the first step. Further policy is needed souls. And in order to deal with the soul, one must possess it. That is, it is necessary to pay attention to it, to remind what culture is, to cultivate the soul. The soul is actually a very delicate thing, it is more subtly arranged than the body. And I think that for this you need to have an idea about the logic of world history. For example, why are we here, and not somewhere there. We must have an idea of what was going on for Russian history in general, who are Russians, Ukrainians, Kazakhs, Tajiks, Iranians, Europeans, Chinese, Indians. That is, it is necessary to have a set of such ideas, preferably weighty ones, with empathy, that is, with an understanding of the most significant factors for the unification of some peoples and for the opposition of other nations. Because you can't be nice to everyone. You can not make such a historic cast that everyone will be satisfied. And for this we need completely new qualities. The question is, will Putin be able to find the resources for a soul policy in himself or not? In itself? Around yourself? So far, this issue has not been put on the agenda in Russia. But it is said about it, as well as the need for national identity ...
This is all clear. But many say that the physical transformation of the world is happening now. The monopolar world is collapsing, everyone is waiting for what will come in its place - a multipolar, bipolar, five-polar. Americans propose that the Chinese divide, make "G-2": we are here, you are there. Some modified Monroe doctrine is being revived. Others suggest: let us be friends in large territories united by imperial logic (Europe is a single empire, Russia is a Eurasian empire, the American empire) ... Maybe this is correct: first physically decide pragmatically who will be the master in the world, and then go on to friendship with souls ?
See, in fact, American unipolarity is the domination of the body, of course, but it is based on a certain idea, manifest destiny (manifesto of fate). And the fact is that the body has become the criterion. This is the result of a certain ideological, if you like, philosophical activity. This is modern, this is a special atomism, this is a subject-object topic of the same West. And the specific Eurocentricism of modernity, leading eventually to a certain model. But Russian culture, its specificity, was precisely the denial of the domination of such Western corporeality. And, of course, we can accept this logic, but then, even if we compete with the West, we will accept their criteria and we will compete by their rules. That is, today, while we have not rejected and overthrown the authority that claims to be a universal value system, we will be doomed to move according to the rules and contours that they set in a multipolar and unipolar world. Therefore, I believe that the most important thing is to find a completely different intellectual, spiritual, and philosophical agenda for Russia. That is, the re-acquisition by Russia of its own destiny, which, if we look throughout history, in one way or another constituted our identity. Because we were not just materially strengthening, conquering someone, colonizing, developing, expanding and digging in, we still - and maybe this is the most important thing - did it based on a certain historical mission of Russia. And if we do not restore this mission today, it seems to me that any physical, even successful actions can turn into a Pyrrhic victory for us. Now for the unipolar and multipolar world. This is a very fundamental thing. If the world is unipolar, then the ideological hegemony of the West will remain. And already strategic hegemony. The unipolar world, which, by the way, is still preserved, is really crumbling, it is not able to cope with its task, but it is. We still live in this unipolar world. Therefore, confronting this world still needs to be brought to a logical conclusion. It takes effort. Because, decaying, decaying like an empire, it pretends to preserve its logic in the post-imperial space.
For example, creating universal chaos, organizing "Arab springs", local wars, in which only so the strongest remains the strongest ...
Exactly. Divide and rule. Or, for example, remember, when the British left India, they created two states, but it turned out three: Bangladesh separated from Pakistan. Moreover, the British laid down paradigms and norms of their social structure in the Pakistani, Bangladeshi and Indian policies. That is, the empire collapses, and the post-imperial legitimacy is preserved. And so simply the West will, of course, not refuse its universalist claims. And it is important to know: is there a place in this post-imperial, post-western or western world of Russia? The answer is obvious - no. And in order to get this place, it is necessary not to collapse, not to dissipate, not to go after them, but to defend their identity. This identity can, of course, be defended only by the bodily one. But first you need to raise and develop an idea. The Russian idea is what should be at the center of this strategy when organizing a new world order. In this respect, this is a fundamental challenge that Putin personally threw. Him and his system. And he is the leader of the country, which in the current situation can influence the future world. And not just physically, but from the point of view of its content.
Let's talk about liberalism, which is not so nice to you. European liberalism began with such a pivotal idea - these are individual rights, human rights. Then he was reborn, exhausted, but a certain hierarchy of values took place. You are talking about the denial of liberalism as such. What hierarchy of values is then offered as an alternative? Her something is not visible ...
You are absolutely right, liberalism is based on the notion of the predominance of the individual. Even not so much a person as an individual, because a person is a social concept, which is constructed by a team, and an individual is a very ostensible, superficial, little visible thing to others. Here we have an individual person, this is this individual, a certain human atom. The atom, the individual, is the Latin names for the same. Liberalism suggested the release of this atom from all forms of social ties. This is freedom - from the word "liberty", and not from the word "freedom". British philosopher John Stuart Mill says that there is negative freedom, this is the freedom of liberalism, from liberty. And there is positive freedom - from freedom. These things are completely different. Freedom is freedom for something, and liberty is freedom from something. And here liberalism is built on this - the former, the original, and the modern. And modern liberalism, with all its pathological condition, is nothing more than extremism, to the logical limits, to the absurdity of libertarianism. ideas of freedom of the individual. Freedom from anything. Then there are different moments. For example, the problem of sexual minorities. Wherever you go all over the world, everywhere the question arises - are you for or against same-sex marriages? Differently these problems are formulated, these groups are called differently - Femen or Pussi Riot. But the basic idea of these disputes comes down to finding out what sex is and what to do with it? Gender is a collective identity. And being a collective identity, it comes into conflict with the standards of liberalism, brought to its logical limit, advocating for liberation from this identity. Because an individual, if he is a man or a woman, he immediately becomes dependent on gender, on gender. Therefore, from the point of view of the liberals, gender must be made a matter of secondary importance, as well as a profession, place of residence, religious affiliation, political affiliation. And free yourself from it ...
* Sergey Polonsky - Russian entrepreneur, at present - First Vice-President of the Association of Builders of Russia. In October 2011 of the Year, Polonsky was noted by Forbes magazine as one of 9's most unusual Russian businessmen - crazy people, eccentrics, and eccentrics. He owns the words at a private reception: "Who does not have a billion, can go to hell." According to one of the versions, Polonsky jokingly “cut the Gordian knot” in response to the question of whom to let into his private party in Nice, because three times more willing businessmen came to her ...
To be continued.
- Prepared by Vladimir Skachko