THE EURASIST VISION by A. DUGIN

Basic principles of the eurasist doctrinal platform

According to 71% of the surveyed Russian citizens, Russia
belongs to a peculiar – “eurasian” or Orthodox – civilization,
therefore she does not follow the western way of development.
Only 13% considers Russia as a western civilization »
(Survey by the VCIOM, PanRussian Centre for the Study
of the Public Opinion, 2-5 November 2001)

The breath of the epoch

Every historical epoch has its own peculiar “system of coordinates” – political, ideological, economic and cultural.

For example, the XIX century in Russia passed under the sign of the dispute between “Slavophiles” and “Pro-westerners” [zapadniki]. In the XX century the watershed passed between “Reds” and “Whites”. The XXI century will become the century of the opposition between “atlantists” * (the supporters of “unipolar globalism” **) and “eurasists” **.


* Atlantism – geopolitical term denoting:
- from the historical and geographical point of view, the Western sector of the world civilization:
- from the military-strategic point of view, the member countries of the NATO (in the first place, the US);
- from the cultural point of view, the unified information network created by the Western media-empires;
- from the social point of view, the “market system”, claimed to be absolute and denying all the different forms of organisation of the economic life.
Atlantists – the strategists of the Western civilization and their conscious supporters in other parts of the planet, aiming at putting the whole world under control and imposing the social, economic and cultural stereotypes typical of the Western civilization to all the rest of mankind.
The atlantists are the builders of the “new world order” – the unprecedented world system benefiting an absolute minority of the planet’s population, the so-called “golden billion”.

** Globalism – the process of building the “new world order”, at the centre of which stand the political-financial oligarchic groups of the West, is called as globalisation. The victims of this process are the sovereign states, the national cultures, the religious doctrines, the economic traditions, the manifestations of social justice, the surrounding environment - every spiritual, intellectual and material variety on the planet. The term “globalism” in the customary political lexicon means just “unipolar globalism”, i.e. not the fusion of the different cultures, social-political and economic systems into something new (as this would be “multi-polar globalism”, “eurasist globalism”), as the imposition of Western stereotypes upon mankind.

*** Eurasism (in its widest meaning) – basic geopolitical term indicating:
- from the historical and geographical point of view, the whole world, excluding the Western sector of the world civilization:
- from the military-strategic point of view, all the countries who do not approve the expansionist policies of the US and of their NATO partners;
- from the cultural point of view, the preservation and development of organic national, ethnical and religious cultural traditions;
- from the social point of view, the different forms of economic life and the “socially just society”.
Eurasism (in its strict historical meaning) is a philosophical current arisen in the 1920s among the Russian emigrates. Its fundamental authors are N.S. Trubetskoy, P.N. Savitsky, N.N. Alekseev, V.G. Vernadsky, V.I.Ilyn, P.P. Suvchinski, E. Khara-Davan, Ya. Bromberg, and others. From the 1950s and the 1980s this current received further development and deepening by L.N.Gumilyov.
Neo-eurasism – it arose at the end of the 1980s (the founder being the philosopher A.G. Dugin) and broadened the scope of the traditional concept of eurasism, combining it to new blocs of ideas and methodologies – traditionalism, geopolitics, metaphysics, “New Right”, “New Left”, “third way” in economics, theory of the “peoples’ rights”, ecology, ontological philosophy, eschatological vector, new understanding of the universal mission of the Russian history, paradigmatic perspective of the history of science, etc.


Against the establishing of the atlantist world order and globalisation stand the supporters of the multi-polar world – the eurasists. The eurasists defend on principle the necessity to preserve the existence of every people on earth, the blossoming variety of cultures and religious traditions, the unquestionable right of the peoples to independently choose their path of historical development. The eurasists greet the generality of cultures and systems of values, the open dialogue among peoples and civilizations, the organic combination between the devotion to traditions and the creative impulse.
Eurasists are not only the representatives of the peoples living in the Eurasian continent. Being eurasist is a conscious choice, which means combining the aspiration to preserve the traditional forms of life with the aspiration to free creative (social and personal) development.
In this way, eurasists are all free creative personalities who acknowledge the values of tradition; among them are also the representatives of those region which objectively form the bases of atlantism.
Eurasists and atlantists are opposed to each other in everything. They defend two different, alternative, mutually excluding images of the world and its future. It is the opposition between eurasists and atlantists which defines the historical outline of the XXI century.


The eurasist vision of the future world

The eurasists consequently defend the principle of multi-polarity, standing against the unipolar globalism imposed by the atlantists.
As the poles of this new world there shall not be the traditional states, as some new integrated civilizational formations (“great spaces”), united into “geo-economic belts” (“geo-economic zones”).
According to the principle of multi-polarity, the future of the world is imagined as the equal, benevolent partnership relations among all countries and peoples, organised – according to a principle of proximity in terms of geography, culture, values and civilization – in four geo-economic belts (each one consisting in its turn of some “great spaces”).

Euro-African belt, including 3 “great spaces”: the European Union, Islamic-Arab Africa, sub-tropical (black) Africa;
Asian-Pacific belt, including Japan, the countries of South-eastern Asia and Indochina, Australia and New Zealand;
Eurasian continental belt, including 4 “great spaces”: Russia and the countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), the countries of continental Islam, India, China;
American belt, including three “great spaces”: Northern America, Central America and Southern America.

Thanks to such organisation of the world space, global conflicts, bloody wars and extreme forms of confrontation, threatening the same existence of mankind, become scarcely probable.
Russia and its partners in the Eurasian continental belt will establish harmonic relations not only with the neighbouring belts (Euro-African and Asia-Pacific), but also with the belt at its antipode – the American belt, which will be also called to play a constructive role in the Western hemisphere in the context of the multi-polar structure.
Such vision of future mankind is the opposite of the globalist plans of the atlantists aimed at creating a unipolar, stereo-typed world under the control of the oligarchic structures of the West, in the perspective of creating the “world government”.



The eurasist vision of the evolution of the state

The eurasists consider the nation-state, in their present features, as an obsolete form of organisation of spaces and peoples, typical of the historical period going from the XV to the XX centuries. In the place of the nation-states new political formations must rise, combining into themselves the strategical unification of the great continental spaces with the complex multi-dimensional system of national, cultural and economic autonomies inside. Some features of such organisation of spaces and peoples may be observed both in the ancient empires of the past (e.g., the empire of Alexander of Macedon, the Roman empire, etc.) and in the newest political structures (European Union, CIS).
The contemporary states face today the following outlooks

self-liquidation and integration in the single planetary space under US domination (atlantism, globalisation);
opposing to globalisation, attempting to preserve their own administrative structures (formal sovereignty) notwithstanding globalisation;
entering supra-state formations of regional kind (“great spaces”) on the basis of historical, civilizational and strategic community.

The third variant is the eurasist one. From the point of view of the eurasist analysis, this is the only way of development capable to preserve everything most valuable and original which the contemporary states are called to safeguard in the face of globalisation. The mere conservative aspiration to preserve the state at any cost is doomed to failure. The conscious orientation of the political leaderships of the states to dissolving into the globalist project is estimated by the eurasists as the renounce to those correlative values whose preservation has been the duty of the historical states toward their subjects.

The XXI century shall be the arena of the fatal decision of the contemporary political élites concerning the issue of the three possible outlooks. The struggle for the third variant of development lies at the foundations of a new wide international coalition of political forces, in tune with the eurasist world-view.

The eurasists consider the Russian Federation and the CIS as the nucleus of a forthcoming autonomous political formation – the “Eurasian Union” (“core Eurasia”), and further of one of the basic four world geo-economic belts (“Eurasian continental bloc”).

At the same time, the eurasists are the convinced supporters of the development of a multi-dimensional system of autonomies *.


* Autonomy (ancient Greek: self-government) – the form of natural organisation of a collective of people, united by any kind of organic sign (national, religious, professional, familiar, etc.). A distinctive feature of the autonomy is the largest freedom in those spheres not concerning the strategic interest of the political formations of continental dimension.
Autonomy is opposed to sovereignty – a feature of the organisations of peoples and spaces typical of the nation-states in their present form. In the case of sovereignty, we deal with the prioritary right to the free and independent ordering of the territory; autonomy supposes independence in the issues of the organisation of the collective life of peoples and regions, not linked to the ordering of the territory.


The principle of multi-dimensional autonomy is seen as the optimal organisational structure of the life of peoples, ethnic and social-cultural groups, in the Russian Federation as in the European Union, in the “Eurasian continental belt” as in all the remaining “great spaces” and “geo-economic belts” (“zones”).

All the lands (territories) of the new political-strategic formations (“great spaces”) must be found under direct management of a centre of strategical government. Within the competence of the autonomy must be the issues linked to the non-territorial aspects of the government of collectivities.



The eurasist principle of the division of powers

The eurasist principle of political management supposes two different levels of government: local and strategic.
At the local level, the government is enacted through the autonomies – of course being composed of associations of different kind (from the multi-million peoples to the small collectivities made of few workers). This government acts according to absolute freedom and is not ruled by any superior instance. The model for any kind of autonomies is freely chosen, stemming from tradition, inclination, direct democratic expression of the will of the organic collectivities – societies, groups, religious organisations.
Under the management of the autonomies are found:

the civil and administrative issues,
the social sphere,
the education and the medical services,
every sphere of economic activity.
i.e., everything, apart from the strategic branches and those issues concerning the security and territorial integrity of the “great spaces”.
The level of citizens’ freedom, thanks to the organisation of the society according to the eurasist principle of autonomy, is unprecedentedly high. Man is given possibilities of self-realisation and creative development never seen before in the history of mankind.

The issues of strategic security, the international activities beyond the frame of the single continental space, the macro-level economic issues, the control over strategic resources and communications – are found under the management of the single strategic centre *.


* Single strategic centre – conventional definition for all those instances which are being delegated the control over the strategic regional government of the “great spaces”. It is a rigidly hierarchic structure, combining elements from the military, juridical and administrative offices. It is the pole of geopolitical planning and government of the “great spaces”.

The spheres of competence of the strategic and local levels of power are strictly delimited. Any attempt to introduce the autonomy in the issues found under the competence of the single strategic centre must be broken off. The reverse is also true.

In this way, the eurasist principles of government organically combine in themselves traditional and religious right, national and local traditions, take into account all the riches of the social-political regimes having formed during the course of history, and therefore offer a solid guarantee of stability, security and territorial inviolability.



The eurasist vision of the economy

The atlantists aim at imposing all the peoples in the world a single model of economic construction, erecting the experience of the economic development of the Western part of the world civilization in the XIX-XX centuries to the status of a standard.
On the contrary, the eurasists are convinced that the economic regime derives from the historical and cultural features of the development of peoples and societies; consequently, in the economic sphere they conform to variety, plurality of regimes, creative research, free development.

Subject to rigid control must be only the large scale strategic fields, linked to the need to ensure the general security (the military-industrial complex, transportation, resources, energy, communications). All the remaining economic sectors must freely and organically develop according to the conditions and the traditions of the concrete autonomies where the economic activity naturally takes place.

Eurasism comes to the conclusion that in the field of economics there is no ultimate truth – the recipes of liberalism * and Marxism * can only be partially applied, depending on the concrete conditions. In practice, what is needed is to combine in various ways the free market approach with the control over the strategic fields, and to operate the redistribution of profits according to the national and social aims of the society as a whole. In this way, eurasism conforms to the “third way” * model in economics.


* Liberalism – economic doctrine which maintains that only the utmost freedom of the market and the privatisation of all economic instruments create the optimal conditions for economic growth. Liberalism is the dogmatic economic doctrine of the atlantists and globalists

** Marxism – economic doctrine which maintains that only the full control on the economic process by some social instance, the logic of compulsory general planning, and the equal distribution of the surplus product among all the members of the society (collectivism) can lay the economic foundations of a just world. Marxism rejects the market and private property.

*** “Third way” economics – set of economic theories, combining the market approach with a definite share of regulated economy on the basis of such or such supra-economic criteria and principles.



The economics of eurasism must be built on the following principles

subordination of the economy to some higher civilizational spiritual values;
principle of macro-economic integration and division of labour on the scale of the “great spaces” (“customs union”);
creation of a single financial, transportation, energy, productive and informational system within the Eurasian space;
differentiating economic borders with neighbouring “great spaces and “geo-economic zones”;
strategic control of the centre on the system-forming branches and parallel maximal freedom of economic activity at the level of medium and small business;
organic combination of the forms of management (market structure) with the social, national and cultural traditions of the regions (absence of a uniform economic standard in medium and large enterprises).


The eurasist vision of finance

The single strategic centre of the Eurasian Union must consider as strategically relevant also the issue of the control over monetary circulation. No single means of payment must pretend to the role of universal world reserve currency. It is necessary to create a proper eurasian reserve currency, being the legal tender on the territories belonging to the Eurasian Union. No other currency shall be used within the Eurasian Union as a reserve currency.
On the other hand, it must be in every way encouraged the creation of local means of payment and exchange, being the legal tender within one or more than one neighbouring autonomies. This measure prevents the accumulation of capital to speculative purposes and provides a stimulus to its circulation. Besides, it increases the size of investment into the real sector of the economy. Therefore, the funds will be invested first of all where they can be productively employed.
In the eurasist project, the financial sphere is seen as an instrument of real production and exchange, directed to the qualitative side of the economic development. Differently from the atlantist (globalist) project, the financial sphere must have no autonomy (financialism *) whatsoever.


* Financialism – the economic system of the capitalistic society in its post-industrial stage, being the logic result of the unlimited development of liberal principles in economics. Its distinctive feature is that the real sector of the economy becomes subordinated to virtual financial operations (stock markets, financial paper markets, portfolio investments, operations with international liabilities, futures transactions, speculative forecasting of financial trends, etc.). Financialism hinges upon monetarist policies, separating the monetary area (world reserve currencies, electronic money) from production.

The regional vision of the multi-polar world supposes different currency levels:

geo-economic currency (money and paper values, being the legal tender within a definite geo-economic zone, as the instrument of financial relations among the strategic centres of a set of “great spaces”);
“great space” currency (money and paper values, being the legal tender within a definite “great space” – particularly within the Eurasian Union – , as the instrument of financial relations among the autonomies);
currency (different forms of exchange equivalent) at the level of the autonomies.

In connection to this scheme, issuing and financial-credit institutions (banks) – regional banks, banks of the “great spaces”, banks (and their equivalent) of the autonomies – must be organised.



The eurasist attitude toward religion

In the faith to the spiritual heritage of the prophets, in the great value of the religious life, the eurasist see a token of authentic renewal and harmonic social development.
The atlantists in principle refuse to see anything but the ephemeral, the temporary, the present. For them there is essentially neither past nor future.
The philosophy of eurasism, on the contrary, combines the deep and sincere faith in the past with an open attitude toward the future. The eurasists greet the fidelity to the sources as well as the free creative research.
Spiritual development is for the eurasists the main priority of life, whose absence cannot find compensation in any economic or social goods.
In the opinion of the eurasists, every local religious tradition or system of faith, even the most insignificant, is the patrimony of all mankind. The traditional religions of the peoples, connected with different spiritual and cultural heritages, deserve the utmost care and concern. The representative structures of the traditional religion must avail themselves of the support from the strategic centres. Schismatic groups, extremist religious associations, totalitarian sects, preachers of non-traditional religious doctrines and teachings, and any other forces oriented to destruction must be actively opposed.


The eurasist vision of the national question

The eurasists consider that every people in the world – from those who founded great civilizations to the smaller ones, carefully preserving their traditions – are an inestimable wealth. The assimilation through external influence, the loss of the language or the traditional way of life, the physical extinction of any one of the peoples of the Earth is an irreparable loss for all mankind.
The profusion of peoples, cultures, traditions is called by the eurasists as “blossoming complexity” – a sign of the healthy, harmonic development of the human civilization.
The Great-Russians, in this connection, represent a unique case of the fusion of three ethnical components (Slavic, Turkish and Finno-Ugric) into one people, with an original tradition and a rich culture. In the same fact of the rise of the Great-Russians from the synthesis of three ethnical groups, an integration potential of exceptional worth is contained. For this same reason Russia more than once became the core of the union of many different peoples and cultures into one single civilizational interlacing. The eurasists believe that Russia is bound to play the same role also in the XXI century.
The eurasists are not isolationists, to the same extent that they are not supporters of assimilation at any cost. The life and destiny of the peoples is an organic process which does not tolerate any artificial interference. Inter-ethnic and international issues must be decided according to their inner logic. Every people on Earth must be conceded the freedom to independently make their own historical choices. Nobody has the right to force any people to lose its uniqueness into the “global melting pot”, as the atlantist would wish to.

The rights of the peoples are no less significant to the eurasists than the rights of man.



Eurasia as a planet

Eurasism is a world-view, a philosophy, a geopolitical project, an economic theory, a spiritual movement, a nucleus around which to consolidate a wide spectrum of political forces. Eurasism is free from dogmatism, from the blind submission to the authorities and ideologies of the past. Eurasism is the ideal platform of the dweller of the new world, to whom disputes, wars, conflicts and myths of the past have but an historical interest. Eurasism as a principle is the new world-view for the new generations of the new millennium. Eurasism derives its inspiration from different philosophical, political and spiritual doctrines, which until now appeared as reciprocally irreconcilable and incompatible.
Together with this, eurasism has a definite set of basic founding ideas, from which one cannot deviate under any circumstances. One of the main principles of eurasism is the consequent, active and widespread opposition to the unipolar globalist project. This opposition (differently from the simple negation or conservatism) has a creative character. We understand the inevitability of some definite historical processes: our aim is being aware of them, taking part into them, leading them to that direction which corresponds to our ideals.

It might be said that eurasism is the philosophy of multi-polar globalisation, calling to the union of all societies and peoples on earth to build an original and authentic world, every component of which organically derives from historical traditions and local cultures.

Historically, the first eurasist theories made their appearance among Russian thinkers at the beginning of the XX century. But those ideas were consonant with the spiritual and philosophical search of all the peoples on earth – at least, of those who realised the limited and inadequate nature of the banal dogmas, the failure and the blind alley to which the intellectual clichés were bound, the need to escape from the usual frames toward new horizons. Today we can attribute to eurasism a new, global meaning; we can realise how our eurasist heritage is not the work of the sole Russian school, more often identified under this name, as also of an enormous cultural and intellectual vein of all the peoples on earth, not strictly belonging to the narrow frame of what until recently (in the XX century) was considered as the immutable orthodoxy (liberal, Marxist and nationalist).

In this highest and widest meaning, eurasism acquires a new extraordinary significance. Now it is not only the form of the national idea for the new post-communist Russia (as it was considered by the founding-fathers of the movement and the contemporary neo-eurasists in the first stage), as a vast program of planetary universal relevance, by far exceeding the borders of Russia, of the same Eurasian continent. In the same way as the concept of “americanism” today may be applied to geographical regions found beyond the borders of the same American continent, “eurasism” means a peculiar civilizational, cultural, philosophical, strategical choice, which can be made by any representative of the human kind, whatever the spot on the planet where he lives, or the national and spiritual culture to which he belongs.

In order to provide this meaning of eurasism with a real content, there is still much to be done. And to the extent that newer and newer cultural, national, philosophical and religious strata will join in our project, the same global meaning of eurasism will be widened, enriched, changed in its features… Yet such evolution of the sense of the eurasist platform must not simply remain a theoretical issue – many aspects must find their expression and accomplishment only through the concrete political practice.

In the eurasist synthesis, neither word can be thought without action, nor action without word.

The field of the spiritual battle for the sense and the outcome of history is the whole world. The choice of one’s own camp belongs to everyone personally. Time will decide of the rest. Yet sooner or later, through great accomplishments and at the cost of dramatic fights, the hour of Eurasia shall come.