CC BY
8
L. Skvortsov,
D.Sc. (Phil.)
DANGEROUS SYMPTOMS OF THE FIELD OF MODERN GEOPOLITICS
"Oh, East is East and West is West, And never the twain shall meet,
Till Earth and Sky stand presently At God's great Judgment Seat,
But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
When two strong men stand face to face Though they come from the ends of the Earth!"
Rudyard Kipling.
The Ballad of East and West Transl. by E. Polonsko
During the 2012 presidential election campaign Mitt Romney criticizing Barack Obama for his foreign policy, called Russia the Number 1 geopolitical enemy of America. This statement could not but evoke wide repercussions.
A question arises whether this statement reflects the personal view of Mitt Romney, or it is the permanent view of the American political elite on Russia.
A correct answer to this question is, evidently, quite important. If it is the real political course of the United States, then the world may indeed find itself at "the ends of the Earth," as Kipling wrote.
Of course, one can ignore Mitt Romney's statement, regarding it a verbal twist in his election campaign without any real political meaning. But this will be an expression of lightheadedness inherent in our mentality. Lightheadedness is pleasant in a way since it takes concern off our chest. And the mirages formed and circulated by information centers and special services in the West actively help to remove this concern.
And how does our intellectual "whoop-de-do" behave in this situation? Its emotional reactions are quite opposite.
Fundamental science should reveal and explain the real situation. Inasmuch as reality of the situation is related to virtual reality, we shall need the methodology of humanitarian knowledge.
We need to recreate the geopolitical reality which stands behind Mitt Romney's statement, because modern global political orientation will be impossible without it.
So, is there a real threat that the superpower will adopt geopolitical guidelines?
1. Will the Geopolitical Aim Be Preserved?
Today we can assert, with due caution, that the answer to this question is dual: "yes" and "no."
Mitt Romney's statement shows that there are influential political forces in the United States which stand for the revival of geopolitics toward Russia, and along with it the Cold war policy. However, the influence of sober-minded politicians, who are striving to lead the modern world away from the apocalypse of the 20th century, should not be ignored.
Who will win in this confrontation?
Everything depends on the result of the test of creating the field of modern geopolitics. What will "the ends of the earth" mean: general
human catastrophe or the triumph of the "strongest" and the "worthiest"?
And what is "the ends of the Earth" in historical perspective?
The world stood at "the ends of the Earth" during World War II. After it the revival of the geopolitical aim seemed impossible. Mankind has acquired general wisdom.
It was imaginatively expressed by Kipling. Kamal, in the spirit of rebellious tribes, steals the pride of a British army colonel - a thoroughbred mare. The colonel's son, following family pride, pursues the horse-stealer, catches up with him and threatens to burn down his village and kill his tribesmen.
Can the conflict be averted? Adhering to the priority of life, the colonel's son refuses from vengeance and gives his father's mare to Kamal as a gift. The feeling of justice comes to the fore.
In answer Kamal sends his son mounted on the gift-mare to the colonel's service. Thus East and West "move from their places to meet."
The noble feeling of justice is higher than selfish gain and higher than the honor of family and tribe.
The reality of humankind as a whole and recognition of the priority of its preservation radically changes the traditional trends of world politics.
But this is a virtual change. In reality concrete private interests continue to dominate. This concreteness was shattered by the catastrophic casualties of World War II.
As a result, a situation of uncertainty has emerged. Uncertainty characterized the mass self-consciousness of Russia. This uncertainty became especially pronounced in the new era, which set in after the Cold war.
But uncertainty existed before the new era, too. It was conditioned by the inertia of the Allied relations in the war against Nazism, which continued right up to the notorious speech of Winston Churchill in Fulton, which marked the beginning of the Cold war.
Churchill put the question quite bluntly: what could the global policy of the West be based on? And he gave an unambiguous answer: on global confrontation with the Soviet Union and its way of life. In other words, the policy of the West was directed to a geopolitical socially-oriented channel. Accordingly, before the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the socialist countries system, the global situation was regarded as the dichotomy of confrontation and rivalry of the two systems. Our assessment of the situation proceeded from the theory of the formation transition of the world from capitalism to communism, transition which should take up a whole historical epoch. In turn, western political analysts put forward the idea of "freedom" as the ideological basis of opposition to communism.
The struggle of the two systems is the starting point of the political thinking of statesmen. In this context the results of World War II and the prospects of a new global confrontation are viewed now.
The problem lies not in how to avoid payment for the "jackal's dinner" of the threat of a third world war, but in who should pay for it.
In this connection A. Yakovlev wrote the following: "The end of the legal venture of the fascist chieftains is well-known. Hitler was soaked in petrol and burnt like a typhoid louse. The remaining persons of his entourage were hanged. The lesson was quite instructive.
"It could serve as a convincing warning to anyone who would again harbor the idea of world supremacy. However, one of the main
specific features of the class of capitalists is that it is insatiable in its striving for wealth"1.
Were these words prophetic? Couldn't research "to prove" that Hitler was not soaked in petrol and burnt like a "typhoid louse," but had safely retired to the Latin American continent and lived there with Eve Braun for seventeen long years, be explained by the desire to reanimate the very idea of world domination?
Assessments change with time, sometimes very radically. As the great Plato said, "time is omnipotent: just a few years can change the name and image of things, their nature and fate"2.
In this context A. Yakovlev assessed the change of his views on the class of capitalists and their role in world affairs. This is a special problem requiring special examination.
Evidently, at the basis of confrontation between the two systems lay definite ideological constructions which camouflaged the real political relations. How did politicians of the West and the Soviet Union understand this reality? Was this understanding identical?
It can safely be said that even if identity did exist, it was very limited. The point is that traditionally the initial aspects of western politicians' activity were geopolitical ideas which were not shared by Soviet leaders.
The unwillingness to see western guidelines in politics played a fatal role in determining strategic goals and final results of perestroika, which M. Gorbachev offered to the whole world.
The Soviet leaders discarded the communist perspective and switched the country on to the capitalist road. A momentous reconstruction of the entire system of foreign policy began. Russia fell
1 A. Yakovlev. Pax Americana. Imperial Ideology: Sources, Doctrines. Moscow, 1969. - P. 4-5.
2 Plato, "Time Is Omnipotent..." // Moscow, 1968. - P. 198.
into the euphoria of waiting for global fraternization with West European countries and the United States. The expensive defense shield of the country now seemed too burdensome, and relations with the socialist allies changed radically.
Russia began to disarm, opened its borders, and moved toward its former ideological opponents. Although there were few people in the West who expected such fantastic gifts, but they were received enthusiastically with loud applause. Eloquent speeches were made and gala receptions arranged. However, there were no real steps to establish fraternal relations of a new type, as expected by the fathers of perestroika and reforms.
Speculations concerning the simultaneous disbandment of the military-political alliances NATO and the Warsaw Pact have disappeared immediately after the Warsaw Treaty ceased to exist.
Promises not to spread the NATO forces' activity to the former spheres of influence of the Soviet Union have also been forgotten. As a result, the emerging global situation began to be assessed as the victory of the West in the Cold war against the Soviet Union and its allies.
Instead of a sober analysis of the existing situation and theoretical clarification of the deep-going motives of the policy of the West, the main theorists of perestroika have undertaken ridiculous attempts to present this foreign-policy process as a certain "common victory" of East and West. This looked unconvincing and was like a clumsy camouflaging of their professional and political incompetence. Unwillingness to face up to real things created an atmosphere of conceptual darkness, in which it was not possible to see either realities of the past or foreign-policy trends of the future. A legitimate question arises: is an effective policy possible without clear theoretical foundations? Of course, one can and probably should make soothing
speeches and effective gestures of mutual trust. But what for? What stands behind all this?
Evidently, without theoretical substantiations of policy, without objective criteria of its strategy one can easily receive an "invitation card to execution" and harbor illusions of "jointly" adopting political decisions, whereas in reality these decisions are adopted by others. This is what happened to the foreign policy of Russia in the 1990s.
The loss of theoretical and political independence entails the loss of influence in one's own country. Numerous cunning politicians step up their activity in ideological muddle, striving to draw as much benefit as possible from betrayal of the country's interests.
This betrayal usually takes place behind the smokescreen of general humanistic harangue.
The foreign camp shows a desire to use the rare opportunity. The point is that Russia's history demonstrates that the "Time of Trouble" has periodically emerged in the country, and this created an opportunity for "eliminating" Russia as an independent state and turning it into a source of enrichment and exploitation. To do such a thing to a superpower seemed possible, if its population would be drastically reduced and territory divided.
In this context, "moral grounds" begin to be formed for a rapid reduction of the Russian population and the positioning of Russia as a "rotten borough," whose loss should hardly cause any regret. In this way a geopolitical idea, "brilliant" and simple at the same time, has emerged, which the Russians themselves should realize: Russia the less in size and the weaker as a state, the better" and "richer" Russian citizens' life would be.
Thus, western politicians have come to the conclusion that they will not have to pay a penny for the "jackal's dinner."
Here is what "journalist" and "author" Elena Kolyadina writes in this context: "The authorities like to quote with indignation the words of Margaret Thatcher who once said that 15 million of the economically active population in the U.S.S.R. would be well enough. These words have caused indignation of our patriots. But the stark realities of life are as follows: we need precisely this number of people to work in the oil-and-gas, mining and timber industries, plus the service personnel and families. As to the rest, they are 'ambrosia beetles' giving no profit"1.
The "benevolent" advice of Margaret Thatcher is welcomed by some of our authors, inasmuch as they know that the leader of perestroika Mikhail Gorbachev has become a great friend of Margaret Thatcher. Does this mean that M. Gorbachev was worried by the same problem as Elena Kolyadina, namely, what is to be done with the multimillion Russian "ambrosia beetles" who do not bring any profit?
Elena Kolyadina failed to notice that this problem concerned her own fate. This is a trait of some of our "intellectuals," who believe that they are always outside the sphere of action of the general rules of life. Perhaps, they might think, all these "ambrosia beetles" should be thrown over the bridge...
The idea of Margaret Thatcher so ardently supported by Elena Kolyadina has become the starting point of purposeful information impact in a definite direction. This is not only a conceptual impact, but one creating events which can form public opinion.
Due to this, things can happen which would seem simply incredible from the point of view of common sense.
The global enemies of Russia are taken for "friends" and the history of one's own country as the history of a civilizatory "enemy."
1 Elena Kolyadina. "How Many Russians We Need? // Newspaper "Metro", July 11, 2012, No 55.
This new vision of the global reality is facing the fundamental question: Why was it that as a result of the renunciation of the ultimate aim of communist construction and return to the path of capitalist development Russia was not adopted in the "fraternal family" of West European countries and did not become a friendly partner of Uncle Sam in his global policy? M. Gorbachev's and B. Yeltsin's embraces of the West were heartily greeted in words, but in actual fact proved futile.
This question has been answered by political analysts playing the key role in the formation of the policy of the West toward Russia.
One of them is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser of the U.S. President. He admitted quite frankly that the dramatic struggle for the world order was determined by the struggle for Eurasia, that is, the main territory of Russia. 4 He proceeded from the classical premise formulated by the British political analyst Mackinder in the early 20th century. He wrote that whoever rules East Europe possesses the heart of the Earth, and whoever rules the heart of the Earth possesses the world island of Eurasia, and whoever rules the world island possesses the world1.
This position explains many things. The perestroika leaders simply did not understand the logic of global policy pursued by the West.
In the interaction of the participants in global policy the priority is given to the achievement of the greatest benefit. If the balance of forces allows it, the profit in this interaction can be mutual and it is fixed by proper legal documents. If the balance of forces is violated, conditions are created for gaining one-sided benefit. Naturally, it can be camouflaged by cunning verbosity, but this does not change the heart of the matter.
1 See: Z. Brzezinski. Great Chessboard. Moscow, 1999, p. 11.
When Russia took the path of its own military-political, economic and cultural disarmament and self-flagellation, this was received by the West as an invitation to a common free cheerful "revel" at the expense of Russian natural wealth. Billions of dollars began to outflow abroad from Russia.
But I'appetit vient en mangeant, as the French saying goes. How to turn Russia into a permanent "milch cow" - is another idea, "brilliant and simple," which emerged in the geopolitical doctrines of the West in the early 20th century.
Thus the leaders of perestroika have themselves created conditions for reviving the geopolitical concepts with regard to Russia, which seemed to have gone into the past. And when new political figures have come to power in Russia, who saw through the ingenious western charade and did not wish to pretend to be "smart alecs," taking verbal equilibristics for granted, a virtual information war began against them.
Correct understanding of its meaning and aims requires return to its historical sources.
2. "Capitalism versus Socialism" -
Dichotomy of the 20th Century Geopolitics
The fundamental delusion of the perestroika leaders was their idea that the threats of a new world war were allegedly confined to the foreign-policy logic of the dichotomy "capitalism versus socialism." The desire for war should disappear from Western arsenals, if socialism disappears from the dichotomy.
It would seem that behind this concept stood the entire history of the global confrontation of the 20th century. But it contained delusion. The perestroika-mongers have boldly entered the foreign-policy field, which was strewn with geopolitical mines under the diplomatic surface.
The concrete elaboration of political, economic, information and military measures in the geopolitical context cannot but be secret. This is the delicate sphere in which political aims and the stages of their realization are elaborated. Secrecy and unexpectedness are the conditio sine qua non of their success in world affairs.
At the same time the information mechanisms which work for the achievement of the aims set and their ideological appearance lie on the surface for all to see. This sphere is quite open and is expected to influence the world public opinion. It is important to interpret the meaning of this influence correctly. Here the art of information impact, on the one hand, and the ability of information counter-play, on the other, begin to interact.
The key role in the information impact of modern geopolitics is played by academic research which gives the aims of geopolitics an objectively "scientific" form. And inasmuch as they substantiate and accompany the realization of geopolitical aims, they, naturally, become part and parcel of the geopolitical mechanism.
In this connection a question arises as to how the academic thinking of the West analyzes the meaning of the global dichotomy "socialism - capitalism," and how it determines the relation of the phenomenon of socialism to geopolitics. The intellectual "tanks" of the West understood full well that the phenomenon of socialism had a direct bearing on the conceptual basis of geopolitics. The subject of geopolitics should receive the key advantage - political, economic, cultural and ideological, which would ensure its domination over the peoples of the world, including demographic and physiological. As shown by the experience of World War II, the subject of geopolitics creates the means and mechanisms of regulating the population of the globe. These mechanisms presuppose the formation of technology, including turning the human body into a "material for experimenting."
The results obtained are expected to be used "for the benefit" of the subject of geopolitics. Such geopolitics was purposefully implemented by German Nazism and Japanese militarism.
The ideological foundations of socialism absolutely exclude such meaning of geopolitics. Their existence serves as an antidote in the world of harmful microorganisms: the foundation of socialism is not the domination of one geopolitical subject over another, but international cooperation of working people creating material and cultural benefits and gaining advantage from cooperation, but not from domination of one over the other. This meaning predetermined the formation of the global wave of the future, which was received as the inevitability and condition for the elimination of all world wars. The decisive role of the Soviet Union in the defeat of Nazism and the catastrophic consequences of the two world wars in the 20th century created a specific atmosphere of a positive perception of the internationalist socialist perspective.
The upsurge of socialism narrowed down the spheres of influence of world capitalism. The periodically published reviews of the John Birch Society showed that they began to diminish like the Magic Skin.
At the end of the 20th century the socialist system collapsed, and the global wave of socialism rolled back along with it. This movement of the wave brought "life blood" to the seemingly drying and perishing roots of geopolitics.
The backward movement of the civilizatory wave makes it possible to make a favorable comment on capitalism as the "ultimate end" of history, a global phenomenon and, naturally, unfavorable to socialism. Francis Fukuyama gave this conceptual commentary1. He
1 See: Francis Fukuyama. The Future of History. // Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012, vol. 91. Number 1, pp. 53-61.
pays attention to what would seem a strange phenomenon: the global economic crisis, which began in 2008, did not give rise to American left-wing populism. The most dynamic populist movements were on the right wing, whose aim was to support the regulating functions of the state capable to protect plain people from financial profiteers. Similar tendencies are observed in Europe, too, where the left parties were bloodless, while the populist right-wing parties were on a rise. The presidential elections in France in 2012 somewhat corrected this European picture. However, one cannot deny the reality of the global crisis of socialism.
Fukuyama's approach is interesting inasmuch as he tries to determine the underlying historical sources of this crisis and finds them in the growing number and influence of the middle class. Fukuyama asserts that the imperious ideas which formed human society right up to the past three hundred years bore a religious character. Confucianism was the only exception.
Liberalism was the first secular ideology of a worldwide influence, which emerged along with a rise of the trading and later industrial middle class. Fukuyama ranks people between the social top and bottom, having certain real property or business, and at least a secondary education as the middle class.
Fukuyama relates the political influence of the middle class to the Glorious revolution in England in 1688 - 1689, the realization of the fundamental right to protect private property and the activity of British parliament. It should be borne in mind that at its initial period British parliament represented less than ten percent of the country's population. Classical liberals, like James Mill, Fukuyama notes, were skeptical as regards democratic values. Up to the end of the 19th century the right to vote guaranteed by the government was limited by the size
of property and the level of education. This requirement, Fukuyama emphasizes, concerned all parts of Europe.
The historic fate of the middle class and European democracy was largely determined by the essence of liberal attitude to democracy.
Industrial progress predetermined the numerical growth and social influence of the proletariat, the working people who bore the brunt of industry, but had no right to vote guaranteed by the government.
The struggle for the universal right of suffrage, that is, for consistent democracy, acquired key importance in determining the legitimacy of the socialist workers' movement. The early Marxists, Fukuyama maintains, believed that they would be able to score victory by simple numerical strength.
But they began to pose a threat to the hegemony of both the conservatives and the traditional liberals. The ruling classes could not allow the leaders of the organized workers' movement to participate in state management, for this was fraught with the radical change of the economic and political order. The universal right of suffrage led to a political impasse. Fukuyama sees in this the reason for the retreat from democracy in favor of dictatorship and orientation to the direct seizure of power. The emergence of the dictatorship of the proletariat as an instrument of political victory and the construction of a new society, and the birth of fascist dictatorships in West European countries as an instrument of the hegemony of the middle class may be considered a result of the crisis of the universal right of suffrage, which thwarted the realization of a civilizatory compromise.
The turn of the middle class from liberalism to totalitarianism has been substantiated in conceptual constructions of fascism. In this context special mention could be made of Giovanni Gentile's work "The Philosophic Basis of Fascism." (1928).
He proceeded from the premise that political practice and historical movement could be properly directed not on the road of liberal democracy, but only when the chaos of mass movement was consolidated in the will of the leader: the nation and the leader should be a single whole. Accordingly, Gentile combined the task of the party and all instruments of propaganda and education in order to make the thought and will of the leader the thought and will of the masses of people. Sacralization of the personal will of the leader is an enormous task, whose solution should begin with small kids and embrace all people. As a result of spiritual reconstruction the universal right of suffrage should give the unambiguous result.
In the 20th century fascism practically implemented the system of manipulating mass behavior by creating information images as an expression of the truths of the historical and social life of the nation. The truth now coincided with direct participation in mass functions symbolizing the grandeur of the nation and, hence, each participant.
For the defeated nations, for the "humiliated and insulted," but at the same time having great history, the image of its own greatness as the absolute aim of history could be a remedy for the spirit, and hence, supremacy over other nations. Such image began to be formed on a "scientific" basis.
Information isolation was another key aspect of spiritual reconstruction. The monopoly on information became an effective mechanism of mass indoctrination.
Thus, the thought and will of the leader could become the thought and will of the masses, the thought and will of the entire nation, as the initial condition for reaching the absolute advantage of global supremacy by a nation.
The consolidation of a nation on the basis of the idea of global supremacy over "inferior" nations, combined with the technically
perfect militarization of society, creates new conditions for implementing geopolitics. On the one hand, the aim of geopolitics is the expansion of the Lebensraum of a nation, that is, the narrow nationalistic aim. But on the other hand, fascism positioned itself as the only possible panacea for saving "cultural" Europe from "barbarous" communism. Thus, it contained the cosmopolitan class essence.
The strategic and ideological calculations of the chieftains of fascism were made on this basis.
Geopolitics becomes open and hidden, crude and flexible, which should ensure it the ultimate historical success.
The information-ideological monopoly of the leader of the nation makes it possible to create any image of the geopolitical enemy No1 of a nation, depending on the aims of geopolitical strategy and the prevailing situation. The future main enemy can be pushed into the background temporarily, if this is tactically expedient.
Gentile asserted that fascism was not a religion and not a political theory, but the adoption of decisions and actions at the necessary time, when favorable conditions were ripe for them. In this interpretation the leader of the nation acquires absolute freedom for determining the ways to reach the absolute aim of the nation when adopting nationwide decisions. This is the key premise of the doctrine of Nazism. In this connection attention should be turned to a discussion which developed around the philosophical positions of Martin Heidegger. He is sometimes presented as the chief ideologist of Nazism. This view was expressed in the recent publication of the book by Emmanuel Faye - "Heidegger: The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy, in Light of the Unpublished Seminars of 1933-1935"1.
1 Emmanuel Faye. Heidegger. The Introduction of Nazism into Philosophy, in Light of the Unpublished Seminars of 1933-1935, New Haven/London; Yale University Press, 2009.
E. Faye believes that the seminars enable one to assert that Heidegger mobilized his philosophical thinking not only for interpreting, but also legitimizing Hitler's interpretation of "popular revolution" and a "people's state." It appears that Heidegger's philosophy is that of Nazism.
Florian Grosser, an associate of the philosophy department of Munich University, does not agree with this view. He maintains that contrary to his hopes in the mid-1930s, by 1940 Heidegger came to the conclusion that Nazism was not able to overcome the "metaphysical history" of Europe, which enabled him to present the racist and totalitarian views of Hitler as the ultimate version of the "metaphysics of subjectivity," which required a major challenge and rejection1.
Hence, a conclusion can be made that the "overcoming" of metaphysics by Heidegger had a hidden anti-Hitler meaning.
This view does not seem absurd. One could imagine that Heidegger came up closely to understanding the fundamental lameness of the metaphysics of the absolute advantage of a race.
The openness of Being makes it possible to reveal coincidence of the absolute with nothing, inasmuch as it is precisely nothing that is the absolute and finite "basis" of freedom.
This means that the absolute advantage of world supremacy contains in itself a trap of fundamental ambiguity, which is demonstrated by the crumbling of great empires. Proceeding from his interpretation of the basis of Being upon which metaphysics is fed, Heidegger could assume that history is based on reality which inevitably destroys the discursive plans of achieving racial supremacy. Historical evolution is based on the infinity of Being, which can "reveal itself" in the most unexpected forms.
1 See: Florian Grosser on Heidegger. // European Journal of Philosophy, vol. 19, Number 4, December 2012, p. 628.
It is indicative that Florian Grosser notes Faye's fundamental misapprehension of Heidegger's position. In his lecture on Nietzsche, Heidegger characterized motorization of Wehrmacht as a metaphysical act. Faye interpreted this idea as the legitimization of the domination of Nazism. In actual fact, when Heidegger defined the aggressive and cruel expansionism of Hitler as "metaphysical," it showed his disillusionment of the realities of Nazism. Nazism tried to lend its subjective metaphysics an objective form by using art. Subjectivism in politics acquires an appearance of culture: aesthetics and criminal policy merge into a single whole.
The racist ideological trend of fascist art radically distinguished it from the art of socialist realism. The grandeur of parades, enthusiasm at seeing the destructive power of arms, the feeling of real freedom with the absence of moral and legal restrictions give birth to a new type of consciousness of the middle class, which coincides with mass consciousness. The middle class can change in spirit, can loose, subjectively, its class spirit, and in this form and essence it becomes the foundation of the fascist dictatorship, a state-leader (Fuehrerstaat), homogeneous People's state (Volkstaat).
It is precisely fascism that creates the phenomenon of people as a "plural subject," as a human mass turned into mobs in which class, professional and other distinctions acquire the general vector of social, political and ideological life and obey the guiding movements and gestures of the leader. Does this mean the complete destruction of freedom, as some critics of totalitarianism believe? This is a very simplified and ideologically deterministic view of reality.
First of all, it is necessary to answer the question as to how the perception of freedom changes and how its attributes are interpreted. Are the perception and interpretation of freedom of a businessman, hired worker, university professor and crime lord similar? The
ideologists of fascism also gave their interpretation of freedom. Fascism is freedom of the racist-oriented plural subject.
The theoretical aspect of the concept of freedom becomes clearer in the process of discussing the subject "Freedom or Concord?" which was placed by Mussolini. He maintained that both notions were indivisible, and that one included the other. The authority of the state and the freedom of citizens form an unbroken circle, in which authority presupposed freedom, and freedom presupposed authority1. Thus, the point was about the perception of the absolute authority of the leader by the popular masses, and the will of the latter as its free expression. In this context, the problem of freedom is manifested as the problem of the ideological orientation of the leader of the nation.
The absolute authority of the leader is ambivalent, inasmuch as it presupposes legitimization of non-freedom. The leader becomes the autocrat of the Law. The Law from abstraction of power becomes the objective will of the leader as an expression of the will of the people. This means that political movements which oppose this single will "lose" the national status and find themselves outside the freedom of the nation. Consequently, they may be banned and their leaders jailed.
For fascism the state is always in the process of formation. Gentile asserted that the fascist state is democratic par excellence. It exists inasmuch as the citizens allow it to exist, all citizens, but not one or another concrete citizen. Then what happens with the consciousness of the middle class in this process? Does it retain its basic value orientations? It turns out that in the totalitarian process the consciousness of the middle class undergoes profound changes. The social and spiritual traditions, which seemed inviolable, crumble. And this destruction process is managed by the one who has mastered the
1 See: Giovanni Gentile. The Philosophic Basis of Fascism. // Foreign Affairs. January/February 2012, vol. 91, Number 1, pp. 17-18.
information mechanisms of the formation of mass consciousness. A new look emerges at the realities of society. They can be formed by way of information, along with material realities. And they can become the dominating factor in their impact on mass behavior. This aspect of life realities became decisive in the recognition of fascism by popular masses as the "truth" of life. This aspect had a theoretical interpretation in the doctrine of fascism. For fascism, according to Gentile, the state is completely a creation of spirit. The nation itself is a creation of the intellect, but not a material prerequisite or a natural datum. Under the influence of the doctrine of fascism the middle class with its limited horizon of small business and private property as the basis of its existence "sublimated" in the perception of its power as a global geopolitical force capable not only to establish a new order in Europe, but also to ensure its millennial domination. The theory and practice of Marxism and all socialist movements were virtually turned into a "random" historical phenomenon doomed to disappearance. The working class should have served the aims of the world domination of fascism. The "specter of communism" had ceased to roam Europe. It existed only on the brink of Europe, in Eurasia. And a "cleansing" operation had already been prepared against it, which was elaborated in the "Barbarossa" plan.
Thus, the internationalist wave raised by the October revolution of 1917 had to die down. The geopolitical situation in the world was radically changing. The middle class, trying to save its status and its property, changed spiritually and renounced the principles of classical liberalism, replacing them by undemocratic elements. At the same time it believed in its mission of the master of the world. It accepted the geopolitical doctrine of expanding the Lebensraum and establishing the world supremacy of the Aryan race. But it entered into contradiction not only with socialism, but also with realities of the
policy of the Anglo-Saxon countries which continued to adhere to the philosophy of traditional liberalism. Fascism formed an idealistic illusion about the marginal nature of socialism, and ultimately became its victim. The main forces of fascism were defeated by the socialist power on the Eastern front, so that the Allied armies when crossing the English Channel could hope for a successful completion of a very risky operation, that is, the opening of the Second front in Europe, which would have been simply impossible in other conditions than those in 1944, at the final stage of the war. The ringleaders of the Third Reich saw the possibility of salvation in playing the game of class contradictions among the participants in the anti-Hitler coalition. Attempts were made already in the course of the war to find a common language with western politicians, with a view to uniting the efforts of fascism and liberalism in order to stop the victorious onslaught of the Soviet Army. But this game failed through. Racism dealt a blow at Nazism.
Thus, we deal with the real philosophical experience of the 20th century. Can it be used in our time?
3. Liberal Democracy as a New World Order:
Erosion of Illusions
As a result of the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the socialist community the idea of liberal democracy has become widespread as the only global foundation of a new world order. This virtual order was perceived as the "ousting" and "replacement" of the conceptual image of global communism. The initial basis of this idea was the neo-liberal attitude to man as a human being whose behavior can be manipulated and to whom various forms of the imitation of freedom and consumer happiness could be applied, instead of universal moral and social principles. The truth of being is understood as leaving
the individual alone with himself as the condition for his genuine freedom. It is precisely in such a state that man can easily become an object of the impact of manipulations. In other words, he can become personally anything.
Fukuyama believes in the global meaning of liberal democracy. He tries to explain the global assertion of liberal democracy by the dynamics of the influence of the middle class. It seems strange that Fukuyama ignores the metamorphoses of the consciousness of the middle class in fascist states and, accordingly, does not draw any conclusions from this experience.
In his view, the middle class has always been, and remains, the "morally pure" bearer of democracy. Accordingly, the postwar democratization processes of the world were connected, in Fukuyama's view, not with the defeat of fascism and the disintegration of colonial empires, but with the successes of world economic development and the growing share of the middle class in the total population of different countries. He proceeds from the fact that the global function of the middle class is to lend stability to the process of expanding democracy. He does not see "undercurrents" in this process, which change the picture of the evolution of civilization. He singles out a tendency which took shape in the postwar period, the tendency of the growing influence of democracy, and states that beginning from the 1970s, when there were 45 elected democracies in the world, their influence was growing all the time, and so their number reached 120 by the end of the 1990s.
Fukuyama does not see the threat of reanimation of fascism. He proceeds from the premise that "today there is a broad global consensus on the legitimacy, at least in principle, of liberal democracy"1.
1 Francis Fukuyama. The Future of History. // Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012, vol. 91, Number 1, p. 56.
But what can "ripen" within it? The outward form can camouflage the essence. This was shown by the experience of the Weimar Republic. Fukuyama examines and assesses the events in East European and Latin American countries, as well as the "Arab spring" in the context of the self-consciousness of the "educated class." The striving for political freedom and participation is not an original cultural feature of the Europeans or Americans, he writes1. Perhaps, it would be advisable to have a closer look at the social essence of "new democracy."
What are the "fruits" of the "Arab spring"? What did the Libyan people gain in the economic, social and cultural sphere as a result of the civil war supported by NATO? How should the assassination of the U.S. Ambassador in Libya be assessed by the freedom-loving insurgents who were supported in their struggle against Colonel Qaddafi by the American administration? This is not a subject for discussion, for some reason or other. Or what are the results of elected democracy in Egypt?
As a result of the mechanisms of elected democracy the country will be ruled by the Moslem Brothers and representatives of the military. Does it have anything to do with the will of the educated middle class? Is it represented in the mechanisms of power? The new authorities are ready for strategic cooperation with the United States. How can the U.S. alliance with such theocratic regimes as, say, Saudi Arabia be explained? Can it be regarded as an alliance of democracies? Evidently, to explain such phenomena a new theoretical discourse is needed, combining democracy with the principles of the Sharia and Islamic theocracy. Evidently, deep-going changes are taking place in
1 Francis Fukuyama. The Future of History. // Foreign Affairs, January/February 2012, vol. 91, Number 1, p. 56.
the world, which can hardly be placed within the liberal framework. This was also felt by Fukuyama.
In his work "The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution"1 published in 2011, Fukuyama made an attempt to rely on the historical experience of peoples with a view to correcting the principles of liberal democracy and coming to a more objective and all-round concept of the foundations of political freedom. Describing the secular triad combining such three elements ensuring political freedom as a well-ordered and effective state, the rule of law, and a government accountable to the people, he notes that there are few nations which preserve the balance between these three elements.
Michael Mann, professor of sociology at the University of California (Los Angeles), believes that Fukuyama's emphasis on an orderly and effective state is an evident deviation from the standard liberal theory with its emphasis on a free market and limited government as a condition of progress and freedom2.
Michael Mann mentions Fukuyama's point of view concerning the theory of social contract, saying that it has no relation to reality, because there has not been a time when individuals isolated from one another interacted through anarchic violence (Hobbs) or in peaceful naive ignorance toward one another (Rousseau). Perhaps, the most noticeable retreat from the traditional doctrine is in the critical revaluation of the "tragedy of common property." Many theorists believed that it prevented economic development. Fukuyama regards this view as a myth. In doing so he refers to the experience of modern China.
1 Francis Fukuyama. The Origins of Political Order: From Prehuman Times to the French Revolution. Farrar, Strauss and Giroux, 2011.
2 See: Michael Mann. Freedom's Secret Recipe. // Foreign Affairs, vol. 92, No 2, p. 162.
Moreover, he maintains that the best form of freedom is, possibly, a combination of the tradition of China, which created a strong state protecting its citizens from the corruption and "tyranny of nephews," and the tradition of the caste system of India protecting its citizens from the tyranny of the state. A strong state and strong society are the two centers of power capable to balance and contain each other. In actual fact, it is not so important to what degree the state system of a country corresponds to the principles of traditional liberalism. These principles can be quite loose. For example, one can believe that Britain has created exemplary democracy. Why then such democracy should include monarchy as its component?
If exemplary democracy includes monarchy then the United States cannot be considered such democracy. Fukuyama is worried by the fact that the development of modern technologies and globalization undermine the middle class, because only a minority of the population can achieve its status. Fukuyama has to admit that there are many reasons to believe that inequality will continue to deepen and that the elites in all societies use access to power for protecting their own interests. The American elites are no exception. The economic crisis has confirmed Fukuyama's apprehensions.
It would seem that the aggravation of the crisis of the economy and power should lead to the revival of left-wing views. However, new populism often acquires the form of the right, not left, wing. Indicative in this respect is the growing influence of Thatcherism. Fukuyama gives his own appraisal of the ideas of Margaret Thatcher who strove to revive traditional capitalism based on overcoming the postwar doctrines of the Welfare State. It would seem that this political course should have caused active resistance of the working class. But this was not the case.
The key circumstance should be borne in mind that capitalism developed on the basis of its belief in the endlessness of natural resources - energy and raw material, and the relative climatic and other natural stability. This was also a prerequisite of the communist doctrine.
This initial premise has now been called in question. Mankind has confronted the problem of transition to a qualitatively new type of the evolution of civilization.
Margaret Thatcher tried to find new protective mechanisms for traditional capitalism, presenting them as the road to preserving the social order in Britain. This determined her political success. The British working class on the whole supported Margaret Thatcher.
David Morley who plays a key role at the Birmingham School of cultural studies, refers to Stuart Hall who explains the success of Margaret Thatcher at the end of the 1970s - beginning of the 1980s by the cultural factor. The reason for this lay in that the "authoritarian populism" of Margaret Thatcher was in line with the hopes for stability of the Anglo-Saxon working class in Britain, even if the working class of Russia were doomed to extinction.
Most voters from among the British working class supported Margaret Thatcher in her desire to return to traditional "Victorian values" and discard "liberal progressive ideology." Ideology divided the social classes, and drawing the left-wing voters to one's side required specific spiritual and information mechanisms.
The understanding of cultural parameters has reached a critical point1. In this context David Morley gives his assessment of pop-
1 See: Huimin Jin. British Cultural Studies, Active Audiences and Status of Cultural Theory. An Interview with David Morley. // Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 28. Number 4, July 2011. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, p. 126.
culture. He disagrees with F. Jameson and J. Baudrillard who regard it shallow, superficial and meaningless.
Morley maintains that the upsurge of Thatcherism in Britain cannot be understood if the battles going on in the sphere of pop-culture are ignored1.
Pop-culture has become a factor of political strategy, and this was clearly revealed during the opening and closing of the 2012 Olympic Games in London.
Despite the primitive nature of pop-culture, the plural subject began to accept and approve the conservative course, the course of Anglo-Saxon hegemony. A question arises as to what traditional values Margaret Thatcher relied on. It's important to understand this in order to explain the subsequent conceptual substantiation of transition to the formation of the modern field of geopolitics.
The shift to the right of the traditionally left-wing voters can be explained by their revived belief in the equality of opportunities as the counterpoint of the equality of incomes.
This revival is explained by Fukuyama by the fact that the ideas of the Welfare State have exhausted themselves, while the social democrats cannot offer anything new agenda.
One cannot disagree with this. Masses of people now feel the coming crisis phenomena not only in the economy. A deep crisis can be seen and felt in the spheres of demography, climate, ecology and energy.
The problem of living space is becoming ever more acute and acquires new aspects.
1 See: Huimin Jin. British Cultural Studies, Active Audiences and Status of Cultural Theory. An Interview with David Morley. // Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 28. Number 4, July 2011. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi, p. 140.
People continue to think by inertia. They get to spiritual impasse and find themselves at a loss while realizing their "coveted freedom." The latter leads to collapse of the family, non-standard sexual behavior, criminal activity, and even suicide. The spiritual crisis struck Christian civilization. Christians by faith begin to behave in anti-Christian manner.
Even if we admit the reality of this spiritual crisis, we seem unable to offer a way out of it.
Anti-Christian forms of behavior are forced onto Russia under pretext of the priority of freedom, democratic standards of life, and human rights.
Civilization finds itself before the threat of self-destruction precisely in the forms of free self-realization of people.
A question naturally arises as to where mass behavior should be channeled to and what mechanisms should be regarded effective enough in this direction. What political forces will lead the popular masses? This is a problem of cultural hegemony. But how is this cultural hegemony realized in the epoch of information society? Recognizing the beneficial character of the cultural parameters of contemporary politics, a shift to the right of the traditionally left-wing class forces seems political casualty.
Another question arises as to whether the middle class will want to oppose the new proponents of reactionary geopolitical and racist trends, or it will again make new spiritual sublimation. Evidently, there are dominating impacts on the forms of mass behavior. What is the determining factor here - the impact of objective social circumstances, purposeful information impact, or the real freedom of the subject in assessments of information received?
Some theorists see a solution to the problem of managing mass behavior in the creation of an effective system of information impact.
Experience shows that correct understanding of information as ideological and at the same time material impact on man's consciousness makes it possible to channel his behavior in the prescribed direction.
This impact seems so effective that it allows us to turn "black" into "white" and vice versa for the implementation of political interests. For instance, the aggression of Georgia against South Ossetia in August 2008 the western mass media turned into Russia's "attack" against Georgia.
Doesn't such interpretation of events mean a distortion of the very essence of the freedom of self-consciousness as the road to the attainment of Truth? Man is against this. David Morley maintains that the position of such scholars as T.W. Adorno and Horkheimer who believed that the influence of information technologies had an automatic and inevitable effect are simplistic. He follows an ethnographic concept which does not recognize the adequacy of "big theories," such as economic determinism and psychoanalysis which make man a simple puppet of unconscious external and internal factors. The idea determining the role of the class structure in defining the linguistic abilities of the working class and the middle class and distributing cultural capital and cultural competence needs to be corrected. Judith Butler noted that "we do not find ourselves either in class or in gender prison cells." And this is, indeed, so.
Defending the concept of the activity of the subject capable to transform information, Morley rejects the position of the Frankfurt School, in accordance with which the popular masses passively accept the injections of dominating ideology.
On the basis of the positions of Frank Parkin, Stuart Hall tried to prove that there could be three hypothetical positions from which the audience could decode information messages: dominating hegemonic;
position of negotiations and discussion of information messages received; opposition, a priori rejection of information message.
Freedom of the subject can be effective within the framework of these three hypothetical positions.
The main role, apparently, is played by the factor which Antonio Gramsci in his time determined as cultural hegemony. It is important to determine how the changes of the conditions of the formation of cultural hegemony took place at the turning point of centuries.
It should be admitted that the right-wing forces have more actively and timely reacted to the changes of these conditions. The historical experience of the 20th century was taken into account, which convincingly proved that the effectiveness of mass influence depended not only on the sum total of information impacts, ideas, and socio-psychological injections, but also on the formation of the field of geopolitics, that is, a sum total of orientations of the life of popular masses determining their dominating intentions in realizing the aims of historical life.
What becomes the determining factor in the formation of orientations in the field of geopolitics at the turning point of centuries? The determining factor is financial interests and money. The secret of modern geopolitics lies in the system of global financial relations.
4. Formation of the Field
of Contemporary Geopolitics
Finances and money are the hidden factor of creating the field of geopolitics.
What is declared to be world leadership really means the preservation of the privileged financial system. Geopolitics is the "shoot-off' of its real or potential opponents. In this lies the anticipation of the future. The state of the Cold war made it possible to
retain psychologically the economically illegitimate financial system as a consequence of the extreme global situation for a long time.
On the surface, legal and ethical motives are positioned as the determining ones. This explains the strange permanence of legal and moral provocations against the Soviet Union and then Russia - the Jackson-Vanik amendment, the Magnitsky List, the unlawful extradition of the Russian citizen Victor Bout to the United States, the information ballyhoo around the Pussy Riot affair, etc.
However, inasmuch as these motives are a form of the forceful assertion of the global ethical and legal diktat, they are neither legitimate nor moral in the exact sense of the word from the very beginning.
For example, Barack Obama put forward the moral foundations of the invasion of the armed forces in Libya, namely, America's responsibility for its brothers striving for freedom.
Meanwhile, certain analysts claim that the removal of Qaddafi was predetermined by his intention to transfer paper money on to the gold standard.
Mitt Romney by his geopolitical views does not adhere to an idealistic position. The achievement of geopolitical goals includes the right of victory over the geopolitical enemy. This requires soldiers from any countries as allies. They do not necessarily strive to become free "brothers." They could be monarchists, Islamists, and even terrorists. The main thing is to achieve success in opposing the geopolitical enemy.
Thus, geopolitics recognizes different types of legal and moral identification of "one's own" and the "aliens." The determining factor in the choice of identification is the result reached in global controllability of the modern world.
What is the basis of the theory of controllability?
Michel Foucault in his interpretation of biopolitics described the behavioral modifications of human being, in accordance with which, by a version of neoliberalism, the affective-rational personality becomes manageable by virtue of his systematic reaction to variations of the environment. If the formation of the properties of the medium is not determined by the ultimate aims of history - the idea of world communism or the triumph of liberal democracy and market economy, the question arises as to what comes to replace them.
To replace them is the elaboration of a new world order in accordance with the established hierarchic structure of states. The establishment of hierarchy is the real aim of the world order. According to this aim, the information medium should be formed, which is positioned as the real truth of modern life. The medium coincides with the information description of the present extrapolated to the future. Due to this social reality as it really is "collapses" into information reality satisfying the design process of geopolitics.
One cannot explain the "strange behavior" of the western mass media outside the framework of this process. Their function now is to create the necessary characteristics of the medium. If history has no ultimate aims, then man finds himself in situations changing one another. The truth of his being is the creation of the most convenient and advantageous situation for himself. The absolute advantage is the finite truth of the meaning, and the way to it is the game which should be won. From the point of view of international affairs the heart of the matter is the arrangement of a geopolitical game, where the players are separate states. In order to win the game the geopolitical subject may assume any image, if it brings him victory. The outward image created by moral and legal rhetoric can "civilize" the gloomy abyss of the catastrophic consequences of the "blind fury" of geopolitics. Hidden freedom in the adopted image is the "strategic capital" of the subject.
This position seems adequate to the situation of potential global "catastrophism." In order to understand it the clarification of the very essence of the construction of the field of modern geopolitics is necessary.
The construction of the field of geopolitics can be viewed as a hypothetical project, as virtual reality, which passes through specific approbation in military operations and in particular forms of political behavior, including "unification" of liberal democracy with monarchic regimes, cooperation between secret services and terrorist organizations, and western state structures with the state structures of the Muslim Brothers. Why such "whateverism" of geopolitics and what determines it?
The meaning of the field of geopolitics is determined by the metaphysics of the absolute advantage. This is the motive of its strategy. At the same time the field of geopolitics determines the type of control over mass behavior overcoming its traditional forms. In Christianity control over mass behavior consists of the attitude of the laity to the authority and spiritual guidance of the clergy, and recognition of this guidance as the way to salvation. All who believe and follow religious postulates take the road to salvation.
In ideological structures ideological control of mass consciousness is predetermined by the substantiation of the ultimate aim of history, and the struggle for its realization determines the meaning and truth of life.
In the conditions of the present-day global crisis trends there is a requirement to determine the new ways of adequate mass behavior based on the empirical knowledge of the mechanisms of life. The latter is presented as the field of reaching success, fortune and survival, and the technology of geopolitics is built on this psychological foundation. Survival is conditioned by submission of others to one's own will. The
technology of geopolitics as a "creative process" is connected with the creation of situations of inner capitulation and renunciation of sovereign power with a view to avoiding the destructive military wave. This possibility to save one's life should be brought to the consciousness and knowledge of the target of geopolitics.
This determines the nature of the pre-occupation psychological impact on the consciousness of the population of the country chosen as the target of geopolitics. The cultural factor plays a special role in this impact, as it forms friendly feelings toward the subject of geopolitics. Thus the possibility of the emergence of a mass resistance movement is neutralized.
On the other hand, the population's self-consciousness is suppressed with the help of "clarifying" the reality of asymmetrical relations based on the threat of total destruction.
The field of geopolitics can be viewed as a specific variety of information field.
Information field creates orientations of human behavior in real life. This is not a reflection of the realities of life, but only orientations of behavior. Here is a simple example of information field - traffic light: red light bans movement, green light allows it, yellow light warns for readiness to move or to stop. Information field creates a system of guidelines of survival, vision of real and potential threats, and vision of practical orientations of behavior contributing to survival.
The emerging information field can answer the interests of the population of one or another concrete region. But it can also be formed in accordance with the priority of private interests. Here information field can acquire the quality of the field of geopolitics. Its specific feature lies in determining for countries the boundaries of their possibilities to achieve success, and also their global function. At the same time the reasons for "dividing" global civilization by "worthiness"
or "unworthiness" are thus determined. Mankind in the field of geopolitics does not look as a civilizatory whole or as a sum of authentic local civilizations. It forms a hierarchic pyramid whose top is held by the constant winner of the geopolitical game.
It should be borne in mind that in the 20th century, under the impact of historical experience, there was a radical change of the meaning and functions of conceptual and dogmatic notions which pretended to understanding history and historical life as a whole. Movements "free from dogmas" developed. In this context we should mention again Giovanni Gentile who noticed this tendency.
In the field of geopolitics philosophical theory becomes an art of construction. A classical example of the geopolitical art of construction was the arson of Reichstag by the Nazis. This act was a public information message containing a reference point of global politics. The burning Reichstag was an objective reality which could be observed by anyone. Consequently, this was the truth.
The art of construction is aimed at creating such prejudices of mass global behavior, which is in line with the strategy of the subject working to establish his exclusive role in the world. The art of construction of the Nazis was aimed at creating conditions for the fostering of the anti-communist spirit of the nation: it had an introvert character.
The art of construction in the conditions of globalization has an introvert and extravert character.
In the field of geopolitics the key aim of conceptual thinking is the creation of the situation of voluntary submission with the help of information mechanisms. Information is not only broadcasting and commenting the news, but also materializing the forms of life, which sanction thrills and chills from gambling. The field of geopolitics is created by man, but at the same time it becomes the objective constant
reality independent from man. It has an aim hidden in it. In this lies its original "mystery," which should be unraveled. Information reality created under the influence of geopolitical aims looks on the surface as a sum total of "facts." Facts are stubborn things corresponding to the requirements of objectivity. Popular masses follow this objectivity without suspecting that they are the object of geopolitical manipulations. The "Truth" in this process becomes a mechanism of the formation of mass prejudices. This process touches on various spheres of life.
For example, if you wish to influence the demographic situation in one or another country, you should switch on corresponding information mechanisms among the broad popular masses, which will ensure a fall of influence of traditional family culture and morality. For this purpose medical information can be used about contraception, about protection from dangerous diseases caused by sexual intercourse, and at the same time about the usefulness of freedom of sexual relations for preventing psychic disorders, etc.
New standards of behavior of man and woman are established. Men can play the role of women and women - the role of men.
The mechanisms of the formation of mass prejudices began to make an ever greater influence on domestic life in various countries of the modern world. The formation of orientations is taking place, which consist of empirical data and actual forms of life creating relations of mass sympathies and antipathies in the context of constructing a global inter-civilizatory game.
Spiritually, this is a civilizatory shift "back" to the heathen forms of interpersonal relations, which were surmounted by Christianity.
But this is an evident change, a behavioral game. Man submits to passions of the game irrespective of his social status and educational level.
The rules of the game correspond to the idea of equality of opportunities. A chance can choose anybody either for downfall or elevation. Gain does not depend on moral or intellectual qualities of man. In their sum total the individuals entering into the common game form a plural subject living by the rules of the game.
The civilizatory shift taking place has made an impact on the outlook of part of the intelligentsia which traditionally positioned itself as the barer and proponent of the "truth of life."
In this case, the intelligentsia should be regarded not as a class of educated persons who fulfill their professional duty and receive salary for doing this, but the bearers of the "truth of life." The intelligentsia in this form has been considered a specifically Russian phenomenon. Marxist theory about classless communist society as the ultimate aim of history coincided with the moral tenet and orientation of the intelligentsia. It was not accidental that it was precisely in Russia that Marxism in the form of Leninism scored conceptual and practical political victory.
The disappointment of the intelligentsia in Marxist-Leninist ideas has given birth to an ideological vacuum, which was filled with the conceptual idea of the absolute value of individual freedom and personal role in this life positioned as the truth for all. From the Russian intelligentsia formed in the 20th century came persons claiming ideological leadership, who began to position the freedom of individualism as the universal "common cause" and the struggle for human rights. The essence of the absolute value of individual freedom had no concrete meaning. This was why man was also freed from his duty to his family, his teachers, and all those who gave him life, education, provided him with medical and social service, etc. He became kind of a creature from another planet. Persons who continued to fulfill their civilizatory duty were regarded primitive as Homo
Sovieticus. The feeling of complete freedom was overwhelming. Thus, a whole big group of bearers of individual freedom came into being, and these people became orientation guides of mass behavior.
The freedom of individual behavior is always a risky game. But this game should obey general rules. The sum total of individuals following the common rules of the game forms the plural subject, community of various configurations. Here political forms of behavior are intricately intertwined with the forms of daily life, thus showing their psychological community.
For example, observing the behavior of fans during football matches it is easy to understand that the plural subject is a reality connecting individuals of different social position, different education and different cultural level. In the situation of the game man is striving to win and this is his main passion.
Similar psychology is characteristic of people playing cards, roulette, and any other games. A jackpot winner becomes the universal orientation guide following whom many people can lose whole fortunes. The participant in the game submits to the "logic" of situations and passions, but not the conclusions of a theoretical doctrine. Homo Ludens acquires another, not conceptual and not ideological essence.
The modern information mechanisms allow us to use the art of construction for creating the virtual situation of a global game, and organize movements in various countries in order to catch the symbols of luck with which the priority values of life are identified, such as happiness and freedom. This is "knowledge" in the field of geopolitics.
This "knowledge" can serve different aims.
Francis Fukuyama tries to find in the present global situation the ground for new ideology. It will largely be determined by the crisis tendencies in the world economy. In this situation ruling ideology, as
Fukuyama believes, will be populism, beginning with criticism of the ruling elites which allow the few to enrich themselves at the expense of the many. It will also include criticism of Washington's financial policy from which the wealthy gain even more. This situation is not fatal for capitalism, because it can create protective mechanisms of its own.
The intelligentsia, which changes spiritual and ideological orientations and gives the mark of the highest ethical quality to the game of individual freedom, has proved to be the real find for the creators of the global geopolitical game. Immoral geopolitics has received a moral screen.
Whom or what does the ethical screen of universal individual freedom cover? It hides the rules of the geopolitical game, which is about to begin.
The political captains steer their ship along the routes on which they are trying to play the geopolitical game submitted to the rules of "predicted freedom." The point is that in accordance with the "rules" of the geopolitical game "we, or ours" should always win. This means that the game organizer should decide who the geopolitical enemy No 1 will be in the given situation. Victory over it does not lead to the disappearance of the geopolitical opponent as such: its place is taken by a "team" against which a new game will be started.
He who organizes the game has the overwhelming military and economic might for victory. He can choose any opponent advantageous for the game at a given moment.
The game should look like games during the world football championship, but with one distinction: the winner should be determined beforehand. The players of the global game, who guessed what team will get the status of the constant winner, and stand in line to become possible mercenaries of the winning team. Thus, the dynamics of global players and the information-propaganda accompaniment of
this dynamics come into being in the modern world. It is believed that the imitation of moral and theoretical "truth" should always be on the side of the winning team, irrespective of what this team does: the black should look white, and the white - black.
From the point of view of traditional civilizatory and formative ideas such global situation could seem preposterous. However, facts speak of the opposite. For example, after the end of World War II the bombardment by the U.S.A. and NATO of any Christian country in Europe would have seemed simply impossible. But it did take place in Yugoslavia. The main aim of that was to create in the Balkans of "obedient" administrations. Then global "targets" appeared in the oil-bearing regions of the Middle East and North Africa - Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. Next came Syria.
World public opinion is preparing for taking Iran as the seat of world evil which should be neutralized by "surgical means." If the elaborated rules of the geopolitical game are discarded, the motives of aggressive actions will look incredible - "vengeance for insulting behavior toward the father," punishment for the act of terror against airplane passengers committed many years ago, assistance to the armed opposition which is treated by the government too harshly, etc. It might seem strange and unexplainable why adherents of Islam become mercenaries in the Christian team - the "constant winner," and begin to fight their brethren in religion.
Here the metaphysics of the absolute benefit begins to act, which proves stronger than religious and ideological convictions. There is another factor which is usually aimed at creating a medium determining the consciousness and behavior of a common man. These are the so-called psychological operations (PSYOPS) which fulfill the functions of the information weapon.
PSYOPS have a global meaning, they are planned for all. At the same time their main aim is to influence the "plebs" of a concrete country, who seems to be able to betray the interest of its state for a bottle of whiskey or a pair of jeans. The sympathies of the "population" are won with the help of these primitive means.
One should not exaggerate, yet the impact of such "information bombs" should not be discarded either. For instance, between 2007 and 2009 during the military operations of the United States in Iraq, 47 million leaflets were dropped from the air on Baghdad. Food packages, toys, bottles with alcohol, portable radio sets, etc. can also be dropped to influence people's consciousness. Incidentally, radio sets were tuned in to the wavelength used by the U.S. armed forces. These forms of psychological operations should change the attitude of the local people toward the real enemy as toward a "friend." For example, the U.S. aircraft dropped leaflets along with packages of food on which was written "hal'al," which meant that the meat of the killed animal was cooked in accordance with Muslim laws1.
From the psychological point of view, it was the "logic" used by the first colonialists who exchanged glass beads, etc. for precious stones from the aborigines.
The use of modern weapons has also a "moral effect." In the conditions of the "total war" of the United States in Iraq it was necessary to evoke the feeling of shock and horror, and this should have influenced the ruling elite and plunge the ordinary population into the state of depression and hopelessness. Thus, conditions were created for suppressing any thought of resistance.
1 See: Ben Anderson. Facing the Future Enemy. US Counter-insurgence Doctrine and the Pre-insurgent. // Theory, Culture and Society. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore, 2011, vol. 28, Number 7-8, pp. 217-219.
An example of such impact, especially with the use of precision weapons, began to influence the positions of the ruling circles of other countries. All should be scared. Thus, units of "mercenaries" come into being in modern geopolitics.
The state of total fear and voluntary submission and obedience is the beginning of a new global life and the opportunity to manage it through "mercenaries."
The "mercenaries" of the global game create a medium in the form of a "chorus of spiritual support." This is a well-known psychological ruse: if a majority asserts that a black ball is white, then the only person who sees that the ball is black will also assert that it is white. The function of the majority supporting the wrong doings of the "victor" is similar. There are experienced fighters among mercenaries most of whom do not have any ideological positions. Instead they are ready to take part in any operations to overthrow legitimate governments, provided these operations are well paid. Thus the field of geopolitics can have various component parts.
But the general character of constructing the field of geopolitics is the creation of a medium ensuring a stop to any resistance and surrender to the mercy of the "victor." This "logic" is openly demonstrated during military operations. For example, the U.S. air Force in Afghanistan addressed the Taliban fighters as follows: "You are doomed... You condemned yourselves to death... Our helicopters will bring death to your camps before your radars spot them. Our precision bombs can reach even your windows. You have only one choice - to surrender there and then. In that case we'll allow you to live."1.
1 See: Ben Anderson. Facing the Future Enemy. US Counter-insurgence Doctrine and the Pre-insurgent. // Theory, Culture and Society. Los Angeles, London, New Delhi and Singapore, 2011, vol. 28, Number 7-8, p. 220.
There can be information, economic, political and cultural varieties of this "medium." But its essence is one, namely, to create the "logic" of supremacy and submission, management and obedience, life or death.
Such "logic" does not eliminate resistance. The latter acquires various forms and ethical motives to oppose evil. The resistance movement takes the form of network interaction, sudden actions, self-sacrifice, and acts of terror.
Victory over the resistance movement requires the winning of the population's sympathy. What should be done to achieve this?
It is supposed that the population is dual in its sentiments - it can be partly hostile, partly not. Psychological operations have the aim to isolate the resistance movement from the population, make it marginal, and suppress it. But the attitude of the population toward the invader remains indefinite. This uncertainty requires special investigation conformably to the different groups and sections of the population. Psychological operations to influence their consciousness and behavior should be worked out with due account of their specific features.
Without such investigations psychological operations cannot make the necessary effect. For example, during the "Freedom to Iraq" operation 40 million leaflets were dropped before the start of military operations, calling for disobedience to Saddam Hussein. However, the organizers of this psychological operation had doubts as to whether these leaflets exerted any influence on the behavior of Iraqis.
The principles of a democratic electoral system become ineffective in a situation when the sentiments of the population are ambiguous. As noted in the U.S. Army / Marine Corps 2006 Counterinsurgency Field Manual, to achieve success in counterinsurgency operations the support of the rallied groups of the population is essential, but not formal election results. The
implementation of geopolitical aims becomes a permanent process coinciding with the state of permanent war. A fundamental question arises whether there is a cause-and-effect relation between the state of permanent war and the rapid coming of a global crisis.
Is the use of military force against the population of an occupied country effective and does not such use increase its resistance? It is not accidental that the above-mentioned Field Manual says that sometimes a more powerful force becomes less effective.
The foreign-policy task of geopolitics has also its paradoxes.
If even one head of a sovereign state is not frightened, he can "spoil" the entire geopolitical game.
Francis Fukuyama did not notice the geopolitical aspect of the problem. He examines the problem of the future from the socio-class and ideological positions. But such approach is not in line with the global aspects of the modern historical process now. The problem of future ideology "withers" in the information mechanisms of modern geopolitics. It plays a secondary role.
In the situation of a real geopolitical game the determining role of the "left-wing" and "right-wing" elements, Christians and Muslims ceases to exist. They all become the instruments of a geopolitical game, in which a special social role of ideology becomes redundant. The definition of the "alien," representing a "threat" in a geopolitical game, acquires the key significance. Accordingly, the task is to create his negative image as the "threat" which should be eliminated. Thus, ideology becomes subordinated to the change of the dichotomy of images.
The formation of the dichotomy of images makes an ever greater influence on global life. Due to the real processes of globalization man becomes included, materially and information wise, in the global mortal game. The life of a country and of each citizen of that country is based
on the state of the socio-psychological trans connected with the emerging threat to survival of himself, his family, his relatives and friends, in short, all fellow-citizens of his country.
Global players peer into virtual reality, assess the state of the future and try to determine the most advantageous direction of strategic policy. Modern global play can assume military, economic and information forms. Its essence does not change. Virtually, all are included in the global game. Its meaning is the permanent state of war waged by various means against various geopolitical opponents. These opponents are determined by the permanent winner. It is he who has the right to choose another geopolitical target. It is not vitally important whether this target is the real geopolitical opponent. The important thing is how it will be determined. This determination will dictate the character of international relations taking shape in the world. The winner of the global game "takes everything." Such is the realization of the metaphysics of the absolute gain. Such is the unspoken basic principle of the game.
However, the preservation of the role of the permanent winner requires the formation of such medium which has an impact on the expansion processes of the zones of hostility or friendliness. The metaphysics of the absolute gain begins to acquire a paradoxical quality. It turns out that for the sake of the metaphysics of the absolute gain it may be necessary to make financial sacrifices and create a medium symbolizing a genuine progress - after bombardment and military hostilities on land it is necessary to restore the infrastructure and offer projects to improve life and publicize them not only with the help of leaflets, but also through loudspeakers, ads, and meetings with the population.
Another fundamental question arises: can the role of the permanent winner be regarded permanent?
One cannot but see that the positions of geopolitical players, who accepted the rules of the game, differ. The place of the permanent winner may not be permanent. "Mercenaries" also have a strange position. Each one of them tries to follow his correct calculation.
However, correct calculation can prove erroneous. To jump into the boat of the winner does not mean to save one's life. A situation is possible when the boat's owner will have to throw "ballast" overboard. Even those demonstrating absolute loyalty can be sacrificed for the sake of "common victory." Or they can become an object of another game. Apart from that, they can be "guilty" or "inadequate." When the real situation of a geopolitical game is properly perceived by a mercenary, he can begin a game of his own. And this creates uncertainty in reaching the aim of geopolitics.
Thus, the ontology of a geopolitical game, even when it's concrete aim is achieved, contains a potential permanent conflict between the population of the subdued country and the foreign and domestic forces oppressing it, between the permanent winner and mercenaries. Due to this the field of geopolitics is subject to periodic radical changes.
This means that the construction of the field of geopolitics contains the potential of self-destruction. This is shown by the forced withdrawal of troops from victoriously occupied regions. Historical experience also demonstrates it.
This explains the attempts to evolve a theory to determine the constants of the geopolitical game against the main global opponents for the observed future.
5. Project of a New Geopolitical Dichotomy
The revealed tendencies of the self-destruction of the field of geopolitics create a threat to geopolitical game demonstrating its
ineffectiveness. And this, as it seems, can call into question the legitimacy of the global leadership of the "permanent winner," and hence, the financial system, which emerged after World War II and allowed to "free" the global currency from its gold backing.
Geopolitical game moves into the background the principal question of economic legitimacy. The preservation of this advantageous global situation is the hidden aim of the permanence of geopolitical game. Detaching from geopolitics, the problem of the illegitimate character of the financial control over the world with the help of the currency of the superpower which has no necessary gold backing, emerges on the surface of international economic relations.
Coming back to Mitt Romney's statement in the course of his 2012 election campaign, it would be expedient to suppose that the authors of geopolitical game think of transferring the experience gained in the course of testing its methods on to "permanent opponents." The inner logic of geopolitical game prompts to do this. But there are certain difficulties.
The geopolitical global game contains permanent war as an inalienable component. This permanent war should acquire attractiveness, both internal and external. Internal attractiveness is ensured by the fact that it is identified with a game which will be won due to the absolute military superiority. Practically, this possibility is put to an evaluation test in real military actions in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya, and is confirmed there.
External attractiveness is ensured by the fact that war is put in the information wrapping and is presented as the liberation of the population from the tyrannical regime which protects state sovereignty, but does not observe democratic principles. Psychological operations have an aim to "persuade" the population that support of the U.S. army
will be in its own interests1. The population is viewed as a mixed object of influence consisting of enemies resisting the invader, and possible friends receiving active support.
Academic research works devoted to the construction of the field of modern geopolitics contain both its criticism and praise.
Critical attitude to the construction of the field of modern geopolitics is definitely connected with the fact that in historical perspective any participant in geopolitical game can become its victim. A question arises whether the strategy of geopolitical game is adequate for international affairs. The adequate strategy of modern international politics can only be based on the principle of security for all, for the whole of humanity as the interconnected global entity. Salvation lies not in the geopolitical order of life, but in common recognition of the principle of justice based on the equal rights of the sovereign subjects. This means that international security of mankind depends on the initial principle of the order of life in the world.
The beginning of the 21st century symbolically cleared the situation with the choice. September 11, 2001, set the record straight. The enemy No 1 of global security is terrorism, its initiators and strike units.
The efforts of all nations, including Russia and the U.S.A., can be united in the struggle against terrorism.
The situation is quite clear. Russia has definitely stated that it preferred this choice and bolstered it up by practical steps in its foreign policy.
Today we come across not only doubts concerning the definition of international terrorism as the main common enemy of security, but also the attempts to include it in the "new rules" of geopolitical game. Such is the political background against which present-day academic
1 See: Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 28, Number 7-8, 2011, p. 228.
research is carried on. This background influences research which seems far from geopolitical problems. In this context it should be noted that Francis Fukuyama, although he does not examine the problem of ideology of the future in the geopolitical aspect, however, he intuitively guesses its great significance. This can be seen in his assessment of the Chinese challenge.
The disintegration of the Soviet Union, and along with it the crisis of real socialism, determine the attempts to evolve a new attitude to the global situation from the point of view of the emergence in it of a new empirical counterbalance to liberal democracy. Francis Fukuyama singled out the challenge from the East, that is, from China, which combines, quite successfully, authoritarian management with partly market economy. Fukuayma asserts that China began to recommend the "Chinese model" as an alternative to liberal democracy. However, in 50 years the world will not be like China. It should also be said that fifty years later the world will not be like the United States either, although the latter undertakes gigantic efforts to advertise the American way of life. The United States knows that other countries are unable to repeat the American way of life at home simply because they have no material, financial, scientific-technical and cultural prerequisites necessary for the purpose. If the American way of life is considered as a sample, then all nations should admit, in one way or another, their "inferiority." This gives America the right to judge others, whereas it should not be on the sheet itself. This is a very important ethical prerequisite for the implementation of the aims of geopolitics. The realization of modern geopolitics, in contrast to the policy of Nazism, claims "high moral standards." The imitation of "high morality" serves as a cover for the metaphysics of the absolute gain.
From the position of "clean conscience" China can be regarded as the "team" against which a geopolitical counter play should be
started with a view to belittling the serious challenge to western economic hegemony. However, China today is not a convenient counter-player. A victorious game is ensured by a number of consecutive stages. They include the information destabilization of the domestic situation and economic blockade, fanning up of a civil war, unity of potential allies for the beginning of common, including military actions in order to bring to power a new obedient and manageable administration.
It can be believed that the elaboration of such tactical succession of actions is the practical conclusion made from the defeat of the United States in the Vietnam War.
Of course, the choice of the subject against whom a total geopolitical game can be started believing in its victorious end, is of special importance.
China has repeatedly been tested, however, it was impossible to achieve its destabilization. Now that the economy, science and culture of China are on an upswing, it is not possible to rely on its internal destabilization or a civil war. However, the aim of bringing to power an obedient and easily manageable administration still exists. This does not mean that another geopolitical player is forgotten. This is shown by the fact that during the 2012 presidential election campaign Mitt Romney called Russia the Number One geopolitical enemy of the United States.
An information war has long been waged against Russia. It was especially successful in the 1990s. The anti-Soviet sentiments provoked by that war contributed to discrediting the Soviet Union as superpower. Everything Soviet was identified with complete stagnation, and the Soviet man was described as a "nitwit," unable to understand what the real freedom and happiness meant. As a result, the euphoria of happiness and freedom was identified with mass whoop-de-dos of rock
concerts and promiscuous sex. The anti-Soviet spirit has turned the might of the Soviet Union into something "untrue," "unreal." That was the unprecedented success of the information geopolitical war. For a rank-and-file Soviet man it was the process of self-destruction, which greatly influenced his everyday life. For instance, Soviet medicine was one of the most advanced in the world. But now, as Dr Knyazkin asserts, "our country is the world's leader in self-treatment and self-medication1. And so, former admirers of the West begin to criticize sharply Soviet medicine and pharmacology created on the basis of western standards, as well as bureaucrats who organized that system2.
The revival of the policy based on common sense causes hysterics. Thus a socio-psychological atmosphere emerges in which the real truth cannot be discerned.
The truth is hidden in geopolitical mechanisms, which should be decoded.
One thing is clear today: as long as Russia has the real possibility to deal a crushing retaliatory blow in case of a military aggression against it, it remains the strongest obstacle in the way of playing a global geopolitical game. This is why the various forms of information-psychological impact on Russia are of priority order. Ben Anderson noted the point of view of such theorists as Mefate and Jackson, Mackinley, Mansoor and Ulrich, according to which each military operation should be accompanied by the attempt to form the "information medium" of the war. In this medium disappointments and hopes, expectations, and other feelings come out as real forces called upon "to modify" the behavior of the population, which consists of potential enemies and potential friends3.
1 See: Doctor Knyzakin. "As in the West". Newspaper "Metro", July 3, 2012, No 62, p. 10.
2 See: Ibid.
3 See: Theory, Culture and Society, vol. 28, Number 7-8, 2011, p. 225.
An image of Russia's "inferiority" is created. One might think that everything is done by "sinless," "saintly" politicians who teach their invader-soldiers how to smile, shake hands and beg pardon in order to look a highly moral military force. The aggressor should look like the bearer of high morality and culture. Then the object of aggression should look in the eyes of the world public as the quintessence of Evil. But what will be the basis of the motive of the "high morality" of aggression? The most convincing for the world public opinion will be the guilt of unleashing a Third world war.
The moral foundations for a total war potentially split mankind into two parts, each of which can become the object of sacrificial offering. This means that there can be no universal morality.
Academic argumentation based on the priority of a system loses its force. The "argumentation" offered by Goebbels in his time to prove that Hitler did not attack the Soviet Union, but simply dealt a preventive counterblow at Stalin's aggression, was regarded quite apt.
Goebbels' experience is now taken on board and polished with due account of the growing global information possibilities.
In this connection mention should be made of the concept formulated by Professor Azar Gat of Tel Aviv University in 2007. Striving to create a cunning propaganda trap, he tended to forget what army had saved his ethnic fellow-compatriots from Hitler's death camps. Who will save them next time? Or will there be nobody to save then?.
Speaking about the challenges which face the global liberal-democratic order, Azar Gat suggests that essential changes be made in the global geopolitical guidelines. First of all, assessments of threats from radical Islam, that is, from global terrorism, should be changed. Azar Gat maintains that radical Islam is not the main threat. It is the least of the two existing challenges to liberal democracy. It does not
present a serious military threat, Azar Gat believes. In essence, he proposes to change the orientation to combining forces in order to follow the fundamental aims of geopolitics, which should be directed against the second challenge.
The latter, a more profound challenge comes not from terrorism, but from the progress of the great powers, the old rivals of the West at the time of the Cold war. They are China and Russia1.
Azar Gat sees a threat to liberal democracy in the enormous potential economic and scientific-technical possibilities of China and Russia. He maintains that Nazi Germany and Japan used their internal possibilities for increasing their economic and technical might for military purposes. But these countries were too small in size. And this was why they suffered defeat.
Azar Gat forgot that Nazism had used the resources of practically entire Western Europe, and Japanese militarism - the whole of East Asia. And he asserts, without due reason, that the size and resources of Russia and China were incomparable with the size and resources of Nazi Germany and Japan at the time of World War II. And today it is evident, Azar Gat believes, that China becomes the "real authoritarian superpower"2.
The combination of private initiative, market mechanisms and state regulation gives a cumulative effect for the economic and scientific-technological development of China.
Russia has lost much due to its reformers blindly following the premises of the neo-liberal doctrine, and now it has to make up for the opportunities unused in the 1990s.
1 See: Azar Gat. The Return of Authoritarian Great Powers. // Foreign Affairs, January/February, 2012, vol. 91, Number 1, p. 46.
2 Ibid., p. 48.
Azar Gat defines the regimes in China and Russia as "authoritarian-capitalist." This definition makes it possible to identify "conceptually" modern China and Russia with the authoritarian-capitalist regimes of Japan and Germany which unleashed World War II and played the leading role in the system of international relations right up to 1945. Azar Gat refers the new source of global aggression to Russia and China, although, as it is generally known, these countries have no concepts whatsoever of establishing a new world order and continue to follow the order of global democracy whose manifestation is the United Nations Organization. The U.S. embassies in certain Muslim countries could well evaluate the "effectiveness" of Azar Gat's recommendations in 2012, when they had to hastily evacuate their personnel. Facts show that the development of China and Russia does not create a military threat to the liberal-democratic order of the West.
The military threat to the modern world is hidden in the structures of new geopolitical dichotomies, which are regarded the conditio sine qua non of "normal movement," preserving the hegemony of the superpower.
The task of the information and conceptual support of this process is to present it as the intention to establish "genuine democracy" all over the world coinciding with the universal feeling of freedom and happiness.
Meanwhile, the ancient proverb "The Road to hell is paved with good intentions" has now acquired a new meaning.
The article has been written specially for the Bulletin "Russia and the Moslem World. "
