Orazio Maria Gnerre
Chairman of Millennium – European Communitarianist Party (Italy)
For years, in certain circles, there is an assumption of a necessity to overcome the pre-existing political categories in favour of a new definition, which has been driven forward. This is an historical necessity, so it is fundamental to understand the structural nature, in order to become aware of the new political background in which we will have to take our place, to choose the field and determine the scope of the battle.
Such an assumption recognizes in the age of postmodern politics – today’s post-democratic phase – the terminological and narrative failing of categories such as Right or Left and the opportunity to formulate a new political paradigm, which could propose a theoretical line and a strategic path for one of the two poles of the new political antagonism.
The facts of EuroMaidan, the annexation of Crimea to the Russian Federation and the declaration of independence of Donbass, followed by the foundation of the statehood of Novorussia, have shown clearly this necessity, in particular thanks to the claptrap of particular cultural representatives of different political affiliations, who have quickly demonstrated how their arguments are unfounded, based only on the fruitless preservation of outdated political-strategical forms.
It is appropriate to highlight how our battle, on the basis of the constitution of a new political paradigm and in the context of a new polarisation, is eminently narrative. Our war must be on the front of the Sense. Our duty is to raise the ancient, wrinkled banners, which lie in the mud of the abandoned battlefield, in order to give them new lustre and renewed vigour.
Towards a new horizon of the conflict
Let’s take the the more forceful and evident opposition between communitarianist and (neo)liberal tendencies in place of the failing of the polarisation of the Right-Left as a starting point of our discussion. This acknowledges an understanding of the present time, and moves towards a formulation of a coherent political theory which could be historic in its leading to the political principles of every subject who is interested in taking part to a new political conflict.
It is inside this oppositional system that must be placed the old political narration, with a particular attention to the principles which have founded them. It is important to establish how in the communitarianist sector – and also in the liberal one – each today converge already different political identities, which are often characterized by deeply different stories, (theoretical or material) fights for the exclusive control of certain (narrative or physical) strategic sectors.
The main problem, for those who identify themselves in the communitarian field, is the lack of that cohesion which, on the contrary, is typical of the liberal one. This, thanks to its own view of the world where the concept of Value has to be found in its tangible manifestation of commodity-form, manages to secure a more quickly reformulation of its own identity, on the basis of the pure interest. On the contrary, the communitarianist sector hasn’t already identified itself as such. The pursuit of views of the world which are, if not similar, definitely compatible, has not brought all those representatives of the different narrations – who should meet each other on the common field of the Communitarianism – to the recognition of the new political horizon. At best, particular groups which are part of these sectors have undertaken a necessary path of theoretical vanguard aimed at recognizing the historical necessity, regrettably moving forward only in parallel towards the same aims. In these conditions the strategic battle could be lost, and the risk is the historical realization of the neoliberal Absolute. We cannot let that happen.
It is in this respect that the formulation of a new political paradigm becomes necessary for the communitarianist pole, just as much as neoliberalism has found its own identification in the proposition of the realization of the Absolute Capitalism. This political theory must allow above all the identification in it of all those who are part of a political identity which is substantially communitarianist. The duty of the new political theory will be absolutely inclusive, in order to allow the realization of various narrations basically communitarianist in a unique Absolute. In order to do so, it is necessary to declare open war to the Language, the prison of the Meaning, through its reformulation and the aesthetic experiential demonstration.
It is the Absolute Capitalism the first which has reformulated the language in a consumerist and commercialized way, having previously imposed itself experientially thanks to the unleashed wildness in the anthropological profile of the consumer-man. While the Absolute Capitalism is ahead of the communitarianist front regarding the categorization of the historical necessity, the conquest of the souls through the experiential demonstration of its own magnificence and the colonization of the collective imagination through the creation/manipulation of the language, it has also taken several steps towards its grave and its historical exhaustion.
It is necessary to set the absolute pragmatism of the neoliberal interest – appearing today in the form of the Absolute Capitalism, the Capital in its virtual and ideal phase – against the consubstantiation of the historical communitarianist narrations inside the new political paradigm. In this case the common field is to be found in all those narrations which affirm the iniquity of the present situation, the necessity of its overturning, the total reintegration of the Man in its fullness and the end of its historical alienation. Ultimately, the base of foundation of the new political theory must be established on the comprehension of the communitarianist pole as effectively founded on those excluded by society: by the world’s view, by the method of liberal-capitalist production, or by those who are discontent about it, and those that the Italian philosopher Costanzo Preve called the holders of the “unhappy conscience”.
By considering our age as the victory of the Capital (which has become “absolute” – at least nominally – and almost all-encompassing) becomes evident that every excluded (economically, ideologically or existentially) from the worst of all possible worlds turns to be a potential interlocutor and alley of the new political theory within the communitarianist pole.
The new theory, as said by Alexander Dugin, must propose as fundamental aims the assurance of the Peoples’ rights (Peoples understood as communities of Destiny) and an omnidirectional and polycentric approach, based on the coexistence of the same People, of pathways of civilization, cultures, historical narrations and world views, geopolitical poles, which can ensure basically the right to diversity.
Ukraine 2014: casus belli ideologicus
As it has been said in the introduction, it is in the tragic Ukrainian crisis of 2014, now in its most dramatic phase, that we find the litmus test of our thesis. The fact has struck fear in the political perspective of the majority of the “anti-system” European political sectors, which are surely the less far-reaching. All it took was a taste of the fourth generation war technique, in order to confuse the ideas of the heirs of those of noble political backgrounds.
That is the case, in particular, of the European Far-Right and Far-Left movements, which, far from being two monolithic blocs with divergent interests, are actually purely nominal entities, constituted by very different identities and strategies. They are divided in several weak and often self-referential groups which testify, basically, the progressive depoliticisation of these circles, which are now only “areas” of identitarian membership, real parodistic communities sailing in the turbulence of the liquid modernity.
In the interpretative and failing stagnation, which has had a worthy forerunner during the Arab riots, the main thesis brought up by both the parts has been the definition of the Ukrainian conflict in terms of the inter-imperialistic conflict, such as confrontation between the North American and the Russian imperialisms: the confrontation of the relative opposite interests such as in the age of the national selfishness.
The fact that the thesis has been shared both by the radical Right and the radical Left shows an undeniable element: the thesis has been expressed not by virtue of the professed political ideologies and different narrations, but as remnant of an age which has started at the end of the XIX century and has ended with the end of the second global conflict, the age of the imperialisms.
Inside the same interpretative paradigm, which the Ukrainian case wants as the opposition between two different imperialisms, radical Left and radical Right have answered at the same time according to their own ideological orientation: at best they have decided to abstain from taking position, at worst they have taken the stand in favour of the mass of manoeuvre which works – more or less consciously – for the North American interests.
On the contrary it is in the proposal of the new political theory (the fourth one after the affirmation of the historical liberalism, of its social-communist antithesis and its fascist synthesis) that we find clarity of analysis in relation to the eminently communitarianist intents which has to be prosecuted.
Located in the context of the transition from the unipolar world lead by the USA, which represents geopolitically the formal realization of the interests of the Absolute Capitalism in its financial and cosmopolitan form, to a multipolar world, or rather divided in predominantly autonomous big spaces of regional integration which match with the areas of historical civilization and placed on the same level in a stable balance of power, the interest of the communitarianist faction must be in favour of a multipolar global asset. Having taken note of the effectiveness of the globalization put into action by the Technique (penultimate form of nihilistic force before the Economy), the conscious alternative to the monopoly of the Capital’s strength, to the destruction of the local specificity such as ethnic groups, religions and societies, to the anthropological dehumanisation put in action by the process of completion of the liberal hybris, to the definitive realization of the global market, is only the multipolar alternative.
The realization of the great geopolitical spaces, already desired by the prophets of the German geopolitical school, will represent the collapse of the global liberal hegemony, by now without its livelihood, the global market, and of its strategic force, the North American control above the destiny of the world. It is clear that the affirmation of the communitarianist sector will depend by the realization of the multipolar alternative: it will determine the end of the predominance of the financial capital, a step towards the realization of the worker’s society and the affirmation of the cultural diversity, which rebuilt differences and traditions.
If we assume that the path which leads the Peoples to the affirmation of a global balance based on the coexistence and the dialogue of civilizations must be the starting point in the interest of the communitarianist sector, the critic must be directed towards the old conception which still sees the opposition on the international chessboard of different national imperialisms. The fact of the matter is that the age of the imperialisms has been quickly replaced by Yalta since the age of the bipolar opposition and, even more quickly, by the raise of the unique North American imperialism at the beginning of the ’90es, with the collapse of the Soviet bloc. To speak of inter-imperialistic conflict by using the Leninist formula – suitable for the first global conflict – in the age of the achievement of the global imperialism means to use schemes which before were effective, but now are out of time. Now on the chessboard we will see only the hegemonic imperialism, the sub-imperialisms of certain Countries and the opposition represented by the BRICS and the non-aligned Countries.
Who says to want to defend the interests of the workers or the traditions of the different Peoples must take that into consideration. There is no other possibility for the workers inside the mechanisms of the financial capitalism, promoted within the Euro-Atlantic security sector, among precarious work, deindustrialisation, delocalisation. And the same can be said for the traditions and the identities if not inside a multipolar world, where Peoples and Nations could be protected inside the big regional integrations of the great geopolitical spaces.
Today, the battle for Ukraine doesn’t only represents a battle for Russia. The battle for Ukraine is a battle for a multipolar world. The deepest principles of the historical politics about Work and Self-determination of Peoples are now continuing thanks to the resistance of Donbass. To confuse the militants of the Right Sector with the representatives of the national identity is as serious as not to understand the necessity for the workers to stand with the emerging economies of the BRICS, with their alternative economical models. Now the true patriots understand that the battle for Ukraine is also their battle against the North Atlantic advancement towards the Heart of the Continent, such as the miners of Donbass already fight and die for the true independence, the independence from a government which plans to launch the worst measures of austerity and sell-off of the sovereignty, following a post-democratic and anti-popular model of technocracy, which Western Europeans already know very well.
The fight in Ukraine is the fight against the Absolute Capitalism, towards a multipolar world. In order to win, the enemy has used above all the weapon of confusion, by using our words, our symbols, our ideas. We’ve seen too much. The imperative for all the defenders of the communitarianistist principles, addressed to a new political perspective, is to know the truth, in order to transform the world. To fight as communitarists, or to live as slaves. The choice is up to you.