40
Alexandr Dugin's absurd mysticism, or why sounding deep does not make you wise
(criticalresist.substack.com)
this post was submitted on 05 Dec 2023
40 points (97.6% liked)
GenZedong
4186 readers
25 users here now
This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
- No bigotry, anti-communism, pro-imperialism or ultra-leftism (anti-AES)
- We support indigenous liberation as the primary contradiction in settler colonies like the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and Israel
- If you post an archived link (excluding archive.org), include the URL of the original article as well
- Unless it's an obvious shitpost, include relevant sources
- For articles behind paywalls, try to include the text in the post
- Mark all posts containing NSFW images as NSFW (including things like Nazi imagery)
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Dugin portrays himself and his "new" ideology (really just banal conservatism, there is nothing original about it) as the antithesis to western liberalism. But in fact he and the liberals are very much alike, in that they are both rooted in idealism and sharing a rejection of materialism and scientific analysis.
He is neither the profound, world-changing thinker he and his fans like to think he is, nor is he the scary boogieman, the epitome of all that is evil, or the "Rasputin behind the tsar's throne" as the West likes to portray him. And if it wasn't for Ukraine's terrorist attack on him he would still remain an insignificant and obscure figure in Russia to this day.
In short he is not worth our time. The things he gets right about geopolitics - and yes he does say some correct things that liberals refuse to acknowledge, it's part of why he has the appeal that he does, to a certain niche audience - are extremely obvious and have been pointed out many times before by other more serious people without having to appeal to "eschatology" or other such magical thinking.
This is what WangHui, Zizek's Archenemy, said about Dugin too
I didn't even know Zizek had an "archenemy". Didn't think he was important enough for that, lol.
Zizek had written about Wanghui this year on how dangerous Wanghui's ideas are for the stability of the western democracies. As far as i know WangHui never responded
"Dangerous for the stability of western democracies" huh? That sounds like a good thing to me. If Zizek was actually a Marxist why would he want to preserve the stability of bourgeois states? He's giving away his real allegiances with comments like that.
Another pan-Asian leftist argument is that in Europe and the US, capital reigns directly, with the state apparatus mostly just serving it, while in China the movement of capital is subordinated to state control and regulation. But with regard to socio-economic rights, Europe is still far more socially democratic than China.
His word, not mine
So he's a socdem then. And a euro-chauvinist too judging by the way he dismisses asian leftists. It is a fact that in Europe and the US capital is in control while in China it is not. He can call it a "pan-asian leftist argument" all he wants, but it's still true.
Also i'm not even sure that he is right about Europe having more socio-economic rights than China. I doubt he knows enough about how things work in China and how much things have improved over the past decades to be able to make that kind of judgement.
There are plenty of social guarantees and labor rights in China, sounds to me like he's just ignorant.
Zizek never tried to understand asian leftism because it is not ''real socialism'', he wrote the foreword for an edition of Mao's on practice and on contradiction which he argues that there is no real Maoists in the world except Alain Badiou (which is hilarious because Wanghui, Mobo Gao and some other people in the New left have similar views in regards to some good thing happening with the cultural revolution). He also describes modern day china as Confucianism which is also pretty funny because the early Chinese communists did try to sinofy Marxism-Leninism so this is not really that new of a concept. Zizek's appeal to eurocommies is just that his audience is as uninform as himself, so he sounds smart when he says something ''new''.
He was always a socdem, there is a interview of him saying that climate change can only be solve with his ''communism'' which he never defined it clearly except saying that there needs to be bare minimum welfare for citizen survival with a degree of authoritarianism. I don't see how this is new, he just described every right wing european political parties that throws a bone to their countries' pensioners
Of course he’s a liberal lol. In fact, only Western liberals take him seriously.
Here, watch a clip of Dugin sharing the same round table with Anthony Blinken: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kA5a8naNhC8
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy: