Alexander Dugin favours a transformative ideological shift in Russia to counter the entrenched liberal hegemony and reawaken national consciousness
Seriously speaking, liberal hegemony in the country is still powerful. Since 1991, virtually all major tenets disseminated in education, the humanities, and culture have been built strictly according to liberal templates. Everything from our Constitution is liberal. Even the very ban on ideology is a purely liberal ideological thesis. Liberals do not consider liberalism an ideology itself. It is their ‘ultimate truth’. Under ‘ideology’, they comprehend everything that challenges this ‘liberal truth’, such as socialism, communism, nationalism, or the political teachings of traditional society.
After the end of the USSR, liberal ideology became predominant in the Russian Federation. From the beginning, it took on a totalitarian nature. Liberals usually criticise totalitarianism — both right-wing (nationalist) and left-wing (socialist). All while hastily equating liberalism with ‘democracy’, opposing it to any totalitarian regime. However, the profound philosopher and Heidegger student Hannah Arendt insightfully noted that totalitarianism is a trait of all modern political ideologies, including liberal democracy. Liberalism is no exception; it is totalitarian by nature.
“Bearer of universal truth”
Like any totalitarianism, it is about a particular group of society (a definite minority) claiming to be the ‘bearer of universal truth’, thus knowing everything about the universal. Hence, totalitarianism — from Latin totalis, meaning entire, whole, complete. Based on a fanatical belief in their ideology’s infallibility, they impose their views on society. The totalitarian ‘everything’ is easily contrasted with the majority opinion or various ideological groups existing in society.
Usually, the totalitarian ruling elite justifies their ‘rightness’ by claiming to ‘possess knowledge of the meaning of history’, ‘hold the keys to the future’, and ‘act in the name of the common good’ (only apparent to them). Often, theories of progress, development, or the imperatives of freedom, equality, etc., act as ‘keys to the future’.
Nationalist totalitarian regimes appeal to the nation or race, proclaiming the superiority of some (i.e., themselves) over others. Bolsheviks act in the name of communism, which will come in the future, considering the party elite as bearers of awakened consciousness, ‘new people’. Liberals believe capitalism is the pinnacle of development and act in the name of progress and globalisation. Today, this includes gender politics and ecology. ‘We rule over you because we are progressive and protect minorities and the environment. Obey us!’
Minority Theory and Majority Criticism
Unlike the old (e.g., Hellenic) democracy, the majority and its opinion in totalitarian regimes, including totalitarian liberalism, are irrelevant. There is an argument for this: ‘Germans elected Hitler by a majority vote, so the majority isn’t an argument; it can make the wrong choice.’ Only the ‘enlightened / awakened’ (woke) liberal minority knows what is ‘right’. Moreover, the majority is suspicious and should be kept under strict control. Progressive minorities should rule. This is a direct admission of totalitarianism.
Proving the totalitarianism of Bolsheviks or Nazis is unnecessary; it is evident. But after the victory over Germany in 1945 and the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, liberalism remained the sole and primary global ideology of the totalitarian type.
The Totalitarian Nature of Liberal-Reformist Rule in the 1990s
Liberalism arrived in Russia as the hegemony of pro-Western liberal minorities, the ‘reformers’. They convinced Yeltsin, who poorly understood the world around him, of the unchallengeable nature of their position. The ruling liberal elite, comprising oligarchs, a network of American influence agents, and corrupt late-Soviet senior officials, formed the basis of the ‘family’.
From the start, they ruled using totalitarian methods. In 1993, the democratic uprising of the House of Soviets was suppressed by force. The liberal West fully supported the shooting at the Parliament, as it was deemed necessary for ‘progress’ and ‘the movement towards freedom’.
In the 1993 elections, the right-wing opposition party LDPR (Liberal Democratic Party of Russia)1 won in the Duma, but they were dismissed as ‘marginals’ and ‘extremists’. The majority held no significance in the eyes of the ‘family’. Zhirinovsky was first branded ‘Hitler’, then reduced to clown status, helping to let off steam (i.e., ruling single-handedly and unchallenged over an utterly dissatisfied and disapproving populace regarding the main liberal course).
In 1996, other (this time left-wing) oppositionists — the CPRF (Communist Party of the Russian Federation) — won the election. Again, the ruling liberal elite, representing a minority, ignored this. ‘The majority can be mistaken’, this minority asserted and continued to rule unchallenged, relying on liberal ideology, heedless of anything else.
Liberalism asserted its principles in politics, economics, philosophy, sociology, anthropology, jurisprudence, ethnology, cultural studies, political science, etc. All the humanities were entirely hijacked by liberals and curated from the West through systems of ratings, scientific publications, citation indexes, and other criteria. Hence, not just the Bologna system and the introduction of the Unified State Exam, but most importantly, the scientific disciplines’ content.
Aleksandar Adzic 