Comments on Alexander Dugin’s Book (2012) The Fourth Political Theory

By Razie Mah

Alexander Dugin’s Fourth Political Theory (2012) initiated a quest for a new conceptual structure to replace the three political theories of liberalism, communism and fascism. His title struck my eye because my mission is “to imagine the fourth age of understanding, the age of semiotics”. So I responded.
This work summarizes, comments on, and re-articulates Dugin’s unfolding ideas. The category-based nested form serves as a template for re-displaying his points in a semiotic framework. The results are a bit strange, but that should not deter anyone, because the past century qualifies as “strange”.
How so?
The 1900s is the era of religious movements populated by individuals who were convinced that they were 'not religious'. Carl Schmitt, a fascist political theorist, at least admitted this fact: Political theories are theological.
Dugin writes from the stance of a person who has witnessed a revelation: The collapse of Soviet communism, followed by the failure, by Russia, to adopt the religion of the American empire: Big government liberalism.
The question is: How to interpret this revelation?
The answer is: Search for the fourth political theory.
Here is my contribution to his daring inquiry.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Razie Mah
• Release date: Apr 26, 2015
• ISBN: 9781942824237

Razie Mah

See website for bio.

Book preview

Comments on Alexander Dugin’s Book (2012) The Fourth Political Theory

Published for Smashwords.com

by Razie Mah

7815 U0’

This 15,800 word essay poses a question: If I were to re-articulate Dugin’s provocative thesis into my own words, how would I say it? This essay summarizes and comments on Dugin’s book. The summaries are light-hearted, impressionistic, and not necessarily thorough. They are not to be taken as substitutes for the original text. Read the original. My comments utilize the category-based nested form. In the process, new ideas fall into view. My comments also contain alternate storylines.

Single quotes and italics are used to group words together for easier reading.

Preparatory works:

A Primer on the Nested Form

A Primer on Sensible and Social Construction

The First Singularity and Its Fairy Tale Trace

Complementary readings:

How to Define the Word ‘Religion’

Comments on Romans 5:12-19

Table of Contents

Introduction

Summary of Chapter 1 in My Own Words

My Comments on Chapter 1

Summary of Chapter 2 in My Own Words

Comments on Chapter 2

Summary of Chapters 3 and 4 In My Own Words

Comments of Chapters 3 and 4

Summary of Chapters 5 and 6 in My Own Words

Comments on Chapters 5 and 6

Summary of Chapter 7 in My Own Words

Comments on Chapter 8 and 9

Summary of Chapters 10 and 11 in My Own Words

Interlude after Chapters 10 and 11

Summary of Chapter 12 in My Own Words

Comments on Chapter 12

The Fourth Political Theory and Civilization

The Fourth Political Theory and Dasein

The Fourth Political Theory and Who Knows What?

The Fourth Political Theory and the First Singularity

Conclusion

Introduction

0001 Alexander Dugin’s book The Fourth Political Theory was originally published in Russian in 2009 by Amphora Press in St. Petersburg. The English translation was published in 2012 by Artkos Press in London.

Summary of Chapter 1 in My Own Words

0002 The 1900s was a century of ideology. Three political theories dominated:

First, liberalism has been described as both ‘left’ and ‘right’.

Second, communism has been labeled ‘marxism’, ‘socialism’ and ‘social democracy’.

Third, fascism has been labeled ‘national socialism’, ‘the third way’, and so forth.

0003 All three political theories have failed, each in its own way. Today, postmodernism hovers like the spirit of a free floating ‘no’ to the answer that each offered to the question: What is the framework of the polis (or mankind or civilization)?

0004 First, liberalism said, The individual sets the frame.

Second, communism said, Class sets the frame.

Third, fascism said, Race, or nation, or ethnicity, or some other easily identifiable marker, sets the frame.

0005 Postmodernism says ‘no’ to all these, but offers only washing machines and other labor saving devices, litanies of complaints, word games, electromechanical ways of talking, and frequent discounts, as distractions to the question.

0006 Yes, the question. What was it again? The 4th political theory says that the question is not going away. Just look, your electronic reader is raising ‘the question that its very existence induces you to ignore’.

What is the framework of the polis, of mankind and of civilization?

0007 The 4th political theory crusades against all modes that subvert the question, such as postmodernism, post-industrialism, big government liberalism, pragmatism, and globalization, with its logistical and technological bases.

0008 How does the 4th political theory intend to accomplish this?

Dugin quotes Mark 12:10. This is the only Biblical quote: The stone that the builder’s rejected will become the cornerstone.

0009 Say what?

Take classical liberalism. Classical liberals (popular in the 1700s and 1800s) focused on the individual as an autonomous being. They modified the Christian vision of the individual. To Christians, the individual2 (as actuality2) emerges from and situates the possibility of a mystical union with God the Father through the God the Son1. Through the sacraments3, instituted by Jesus the Christ, we stand as individuals before God the Father.

Well, Dugin does not mention this. After all, classical liberalism came pretty close to the Christian formulation. Classical liberalism said: "The individual is an autonomous being whose infinite worth comes from the Creator."

0010 Big government liberalism of the 1900s took ‘the classical liberal concept of the individual’ in a different direction. I won’t bother with the details, but I will state the obvious conclusion:

Big government liberalism says, We stand as individuals before big government.

0011 Communism and fascism offered themselves as alternatives to both classical and big government liberal political theories. Both alternatives call to mind ‘ideals captured in premodern theologies and traditions’. Since these ideals were molded as anti-liberal reactions, they were bound to come into conflict with liberalism. They pointed to a solution, but could not grasp it.

They were each saying, We do not stand as individuals ...