Counterhegemony and multipolarity

Alexander Dugin
Doctor of political sciences, founder of the contemporary Russian school of Geopolitics, leader of the International Social Movement “Eurasian Movement”, Moscow, Russian Federation.

The classical IR theories, especially the realism, divides the countries on those that are satisfied with the present situation and balance of power in the world order and those that opposite to it and want to change it in their favor. The first one are called the “status-quoniks”, the second — “revisionaries”.
Those world forces, regardless of their scale and impact, which are inscribed within the hegemony and are satisfied with it, represent one half (intellectual) humanity; “revisionaries” — the second one. Naturally, the counterhegemonic elite considers all “revisionaries” as a resource. They need the Theory of Multipolar World (TMW) whether they realize it or not. The TMW need can be completely unconscious, but even if we take the “Caesarism” model and belive that many political units are exclusively involved in the processes of “transformismo”, the TMW provides an additional argument to oppose the hegemony pressure. In other words, the counterhegemonic elite (described as the structural form on the other side of the right and left) in the face of “revisionaries” has a powerful natural resource.
To make this this resource to exist, it is not necessary that the governing political elite of the”revisionaries”nations were in solidarity with the counterhegemony or accept the TMW as the guideline to build their foreign policy. It’s time to remember the meaning of intellectual discourse in its autonomousstate(that the neo-Gramscism insists on). It is enough that the intellectuals of the Global Revolutionary Alliance will comprehand the value and function of the”Caesarist” regimes in global hegemony; the “revisionaries themselves act intuitively, as the representatives of the counterhegemonic pact perform consciously. All of them have practically similar interests converge in the medium term. It makes counterhegemonic pact fundamental power: hardware is represented by “revisionaries”, software — by global revolutionary elite.

The “revisionaries” in the modern world arethe group of powerful and developed countries, which are placed in such a situation by the global hegemony due to different historical circumstance, feeling aggrieved. Their further development according to the logic imposed by the global discourse will inevitably lead them to either undesirable consequencesfor the political elites, or to their further situation deterioration. The “revisionaries” are very different: some can compromise with the hegemony, the others, on the contrary, try in every way to provide its effects. However, there is a field for the global revolutionary elite activities in all these countries.

The most significant alliance of the “revisionaries” countries is the BRICS. Each of these countries is a huge resource itself, and the leaderships of this Second World club are objectively interested in the multipolarity, hence, there is nothing to stop them in promoting the TMW, as a strategic program of foreign policy.

The country of the Second World are gravitated by the constellation of major regional powers (Argentina, Mexico in Latin America; Turkey, Pakistan in Central and Southwest Asia; Saudi Arabia, Egypt in the Arab world, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea on Far East, etc). Each of these countries can join the “revisionaries” for their own reasons and have an impressive list of regional ambitions, which are difficult and practically impossible to implemented. These countries have even more fear and security challenges, that are reflected by the hegemony.
In addition, there are a number of countries that are in direct opposition to the hegemony (Iran, North Korea, Serbia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc) that provides the preferred strategic platform tothe Global Revolutionary Alliance.

On the following sub-national level, the detailed analysis is required to reveal the “revisionaries” at the political level,i. e. the political parties and movements, which for some ideological reasons reject the hegemonic discourse in some of its essential element. Such political forces can be right or left, religious or secular, nationalist or cosmopolitan, parliamentary and radical opposed, mass or “keyboard”. All of them can be integrated into the strategy of counterhegemonic elite. In addition, these parties and movements can be located both in the”revisionaries” political area and in countries, where the hegemony is firm and thorough. Under certain circumstances, especially in times of crisis or reform, even these power can open a certain window of opportunity for non-conformity forces and their (even relative) success and promotion.

In the civil society field, the possibility of counterhegemony is even wider, as the hegemonic discoursecarriers act directly without masks and mediation. In science, culture, art, philosophy, media the counterhegemony carriers, knowing syntax, can effectively resist the ideological opponents, i. e. quantity and amount in this environment have secondary importance. One talented and prepared intellectual of the counterhegemony can be more useful than thousands of his opponents. In the non-political sphere like science, culture, art, philosophy, counterhegemony can use a giant arsenal of means and methods from religious and traditionalist to avant-garde and post-modern. Focusing on well-conceived counterhegemonic syntax, it is not difficult to “deploy” a wide variety of intelligent policies that challenge Western modern “axioms”. This model is also easy to apply not only in non-Western societies, but also in the developed capitalist countries, repeating the successful experience of the new “left Gramscism” in 1960-70s in Europe in a new historical situation.

All sub-national political structures and boundless area of “civil society” (in the Gramsci comprehension) bring to the meso-level, while the states themselves (“revisionaries”) as such can be used as a macro-level of counter-hegemonic practices deployment.

Finally, the micro-level is theindividuals who may be, under certain circumstances, thecounterhegemony carriers, as the field of the fight for the TWM, he/she is human in all sense from the personal to the social and political. The Globality should be understood anthropologically.

Thus we have a huge reservoir of resources, which is at the disposal of potential global revolutionary elite. In this case, when the rules are set by the hegemony, but non-hegemony passively resists it, this resource is neutralized or is involved in an infinitesimal degree, and in a strictly local situations, i. e. it is not consolidated, dispersed and subjected to gradual entropy. For the hegemony itself, in this case, it is no more than a passive barrier, the inertia and the object to be conquering, “domestication” or destruction (as for the construction of the road a forest should be cut down or swamp should bedried). But it becomes a resource for counterhegemony when it turns into the real force, into historical subject, into the phenomenon. It turns into a resource when there is a global revolutionary elite, facing the TMW as its theoretical basis. Until that, all of the mentioned factors are not the resource.

Counterhegemony and Russia

Now we should only project the counterhegemonic principles in the TMW context onto the situation in Russia.
In the context of the neo-Gramscist analysis, modern Russia is a classic “Caesarism” with all its typical attributes.
The hegemony, in its turn, confidently puts Russia in a the Rest range and builds its image in accordance to its classical syntax: “authoritarianism” = corruption = needs to be modernized = violates human rights and freedom of the press = State intervenes in business, etc.
Subjectively, the Russian government is working on the transformismo processes, constantly balancing between concessions toward hegemony (participation in international economic organizations such as the WTO, privatization, market, political systemdemocratization, adjustment to the Western educational standards, etc) and the desire to protect sovereignty, as well as the power of the ruling elite, relying on “patriotic” masses. In the international relations, Putin himself unequivocally adheres to realism, while the Government and the expert community is clearly gravitating toward the liberalism that creates a typical “transformism” double think.
For TMW and counterhegemonic elite, this situation creates a favorable circumstances to star autonomous activity and is natural enclave, contributing to its development, strengthening and consolidation. Russia is clearly “revisionaries” in the international system, lost its position as one of the two superpowers in the 1990s and dramatically reduced its sphere of influence even in close regions. Theunipolar world order and hegemony strengthening in the past decade (= globalization) brought to Russia only negative results, as they based geopolitically and strategically, ideologically, politically and “psychological” on its expense. Although, there are no clear preconditions for active revenge, the climate in society in general and the main objective tendencies aid to establishthe TMW and to contribute to the strengthening and crystallization of the Russian segment of the global counterhegemonic revolutionary elite. Moreover, many Putin’s steps in foreign policy aimed at strengthening Russian sovereignty, his intention to build the Eurasian Union, his criticism of the unipolar world and US domination, as well as the occasional mention of multipolarity as the most desirable world order — all these facts increase the number of opportunities for building a complete and consistent counterhegemony theory in the TMW context.

Leave a Reply