The Fourth Political Theory

beyond left and right but against the center

Un trait caractéristique de la philosophie russe, selon certains historiens de la philosophie russe, est l'ontologisme de la pensée. La position de l'ontologisme en philosophie, contrairement à la position opposée du gnoséologisme, implique la considération primordiale non pas du processus de la pensée, mais de l'objet de la compréhension. Étant du côté de l'ontologique, nous cherchons avant tout à identifier et à répondre à la question : "QUOI est, QUOI est l'objet de notre connaissance, QUOI est le centre de notre intuition intellectuelle". 

Bu Ukrayna ile bir savaş değil. Bu, bütünsel bir gezegen fenomeni olarak küreselleşmeyle bir yüzleşmedir. Jeopolitik ve ideolojik olmak üzere her düzeyde bir yüzleşmedir.

Rus milliyetçi entelektüellerin yeni internet sitesi zavtra.ru'daki son yazısında Aleksandr Dugin, Rusya'nın Ukrayna üzerindeki niyetlerini tüm çıplaklığıyla açıkladı. Dugin'i göre artık Ukrayna Doğu Slav Birliği'nden ayrılamayacak.... Batının B planı terörizm... Afganistan'dan ABD'nin ayrılması Taliban'ı güçlendirip bize güneyden saldırtmak için!..

Para comprender la transformación del orden mundial que está aconteciendo ante nuestros ojos, sobre todo el proceso de cambio de un modelo unipolar (globalista) a uno multipolar, es necesario recurrir a diversas ideas y conceptos que permiten realizar una explicación coherente de la misma. He propuesto mi propia visión del asunto en libros como Teoría del mundo multipolar  y La Geopolítica del mundo multipolar, pero estas son solo aproximaciones a un tema bastante complicado. En este artículo quiero desarrollar tres conceptos que pueden ayudarnos a comprender mucho mejor el proceso de transición que está teniendo lugar en las Relaciones Internacionales. Creo que estos conceptos explican las tendencias, conflictos y problemas que se producen actualmente, como, por ejemplo, los conflictos en Ucrania, Taiwán y otras partes del mundo. Solo comprenderemos lo que está sucediendo ahora si entendemos las razones detrás de esta transición, lo cual requiere de una contraparte conceptual. Los tres conceptos que vamos a abordar hacen parte de una explicación de este asunto.

We come to a third concept, crucial for understanding the transition from a unipolar to a multipolar world and the place of the BRICS countries in this process. We are talking about the concept of the civilisation-state. This idea has been formulated by Chinese scholars (in particular by Professor Zhang Weiwei) and most often the concept of the civilisation-state is applied to modern China and then by analogy to Russia, India, etc. In the Russian context, a similar theory was put forward by the Eurasians, who proposed the concept of the Peace-State. Actually, in that trend, Russia was understood as a civilisation, not just one of the countries, hence the main Eurasian concept - Russia-Eurasia.

Let us now turn to a different theory: the 'world-system analysis' constructed by Immanuel Wallerstein. Wallerstein, an exponent of the Marxist school of International Relations (especially in its Trotskyist interpretation), on the basis of the doctrine of "the long run" (F. Braudel) and the Latin American theorists of structural economics (R. Prebisch, S. Furtado), developed a model of world zoning according to the level of development of capitalism. This view represents a development of Vladimir Lenin's ideas on imperialism as the highest stage of development of capitalism, according to which the capitalist system naturally gravitates towards globalisation and the spread of its influence over all humanity. Colonial wars between the developed powers are only the initial stage. Capitalism is gradually realising the unity of its supranational goals and forming the core of world government. This is fully consistent with liberal International Relations theory, where the phenomenon of 'imperialism', critically understood by Marxists, is described in apologetic terms as the goal of a 'global society', the One World.

The “New Right” is an ensemble of intellectual movements that appeared in 1968 as a reaction to ideological crisis and the strengthening of liberal hegemony in Europe. By 1968, the classical “rightwing” movements were riddled with liberal ideological motives, such as the adoption of capitalism, pro-American sentiments, and statism. In turn, the “left-wing” agenda, the core of which was constituted by opposition to capitalism [1], was also affected by liberal influences. Egalitarianism, individualism, the negation of differences between cultures, and universalism were rendering “left-wing” movements allies and partners of the liberal doctrine.

A Rússia é um país enorme que abrange todo um continente e, portanto, é muito difícil mudar sua dinâmica por causa de sua inércia. Entretanto, seria absurdo permitir que esta inércia nos conduzisse ao abismo. É por isso que as reformas (e outras emendas que precisam ser feitas) são muito difíceis de serem feitas.

Rusia es un país enorme que abarca todo un continente y por eso resulta muy difícil cambiar su dinámica debido a la inercia que tiene. Sin embargo, resultaría absurdo permitir que esta inercia nos lleve al abismo. Es por eso que las reformas (y otras enmiendas que deben hacerse) resultan muy difíciles de hacer.

El propósito de este artículo es examinar la figura del "Anticristo" y el campo semántico del "fin de los tiempos" sin referencia a ninguna tradición religiosa en particular.

Rusia lanzó la operación militar especial en Ucrania con la intención de defender su soberanía. Mientras tanto, Occidente ha decidido usar a la nación ucraniana – sí es que puede ser llamada así – como un proxy para detener a los rusos. El predominio militar, económico y formal de Occidente es algo obvio. Sin embargo, Occidente no es solo una estructura política, económica y militar, sino una civilización que tiene un código de programación particular. Este código es el que se convierte posteriormente en armas militares o sistemas económicos, políticos, culturales, educativos, comunicativos, etc… El problema actual subyace en que Rusia debe luchar en contra de este código que da vida a Occidente.

Soçi’de yapılan son görüşmeye dair arka plan bilgilerine vakıf olduğunu aktaran Dugin “O gün Erdoğan ve Putin dünya dengeleri açısından hangi tarafta yer alacaklarını konuştu ve aldıkları kararı paylaştı. Kürt haritasından Kırım’a, Afganistan’dan Libya’ya, Kafkaslardan Suriye’ye tüm alanlara ilişkin hayati konularda kendi kırmızı çizgilerini çizdi. Başta İdlib olmak üzere birçok konuda uzlaştıklarını söyleyebilirim. Ancak bu tarihî buluşmada konuşulanların önemli bir kısmı sır olarak kalacak. Biz sadece sahada yansımalarını göreceğiz’’ dedi.
Putin’in dış politikasını belirleyen isimlerden Aleksandr Dugin, ABD’nin Suriye’den çekileceğini ve bunun kademeli olarak gerçekleşeceğini anlattı. Amerika’nın çekilmesi ile tüm meselelerin hallolmayacağı görüşünü dile getiren Dugin “ABD çekilse bile kriz üretmeye devam edecek. Bu noktada tek belirleyici unsur Rusya, Türkiye ve İran’ın tutumu olacak” diye konuştu.

Although the concept of hegemony in Critical Theory is based on Antonio Gramsci’s theory, it is necessary to distinguish this concept’s position on Gramscianism and neo-Gramscianism from how it is understood in the realist and neo-realist schools of IR.

The classical realists use the term “hegemony” in a relative sense and understand it as the “actual and substantial superiority of the potential power of any state over the potential of another one, often neighboring countries.” Hegemony might be understood as a regional phenomenon, as the determination of whether one or another political entity is considered a “hegemon” depends on scale. Thucydides introduced the term itself when he spoke of Athens and Sparta as the hegemons of the Peloponnesian War, and classical realism employs this term in the same way to this day. Such an understanding of hegemony can be described as “strategic” or “relative.”

In neo-realism, “hegemony” is understood in a global (structural) context. The main difference from classical realism lies in that “hegemony” cannot be regarded as a regional phenomenon. It is always a global one. The neorealism of K. Waltz, for example, insists that the balance of two hegemons (in a bipolar world) is the optimal structure of power balance on a world scale[ii]. R. Gilpin believes that hegemony can be combined only with unipolarity, i.e., it is possible for only a single hegemon to exist, this function today being played by the USA.

In both cases, the realists comprehend hegemony as a means of potential correlation between the potentials of different state powers. 

Gramsci's understanding of hegemony is completely different and finds itself in a completely opposite theoretical field. To avoid the misuse of this term in IR, and especially in the TMW, it is necessary to pay attention to Gramsci’s political theory, the context of which is regarded as a major priority in Critical Theory and TMW. Moreover, such an analysis will allows us to more clearly see the conceptual gap between Critical Theory and TMW.

Toen ik aanvaardde een essay te wijden aan het werk en het denken van de schilder, dichter en kunsthistoricus Marc. Eemans, heb ik me afgevraagd of het in mijn geval geoorloofd was te spreken van een zekere continuïteit in zijn geestelijke ontwikkeling. Langzaam maar zeker kwamen elementen en argumenten aan het licht om mijn overtuiging te staven dat die vraag positief macht beantwoord worden. Aldus is deze geschiedenis van de intellectuele en creatieve levensweg van Marc. Eemans ontstaan. Daarbij werd de klemtoon vooral op zijn denken en op zijn poëtisch oeuvre gelegd, vermits het illustratiemateriaal dat deze uitgave verrijkt, als een soort picturaal complement van mijn stelling kan beschouwd worden. Overigens bleven om voor de hand liggende redenen, biografische en andere gegevens buiten beschouwing.

Hopelijk vergeeft de lezer het me dat ik met hem wegen ga verkennen, die men normaliter in essays van het onderhavige genre links laat liggen. Maar op de eerste plaats is het zo dat ik geen kunsthistoricus ben en het derhalve als een punt van elementaire intellectuele eerlijkheid beschouw me onbevoegd te verklaren om een verantwoord waardeoordeel over het schilderkunstig werk van Marc. Eemans uit te spreken. En voorts is er het oude adagium « de gustibus et coloribus non disputandum », dat in de loop der tijden zijn geldigheid heeft behouden. Waarom de lezer dan ook willen beïnvloeden met een onvermijdelijk subjectieve analyse van de boodschap die de schilderijen van Marc. Eemans brengen?