The Political Meaning of the Twentieth Century

The Political Meaning of the Twentieth Century

In this excerpt from the book Politica Aeterna: Political Platonism & the Dark Enlightenment, Alexander Dugin examines the ideological struggle between liberalism, communism and fascism in the twentieth century, arguing that liberalism’s ultimate victory paved the way for postmodernity, globalization and the erosion of collective identities, while creating the conditions for the emergence of the Fourth Political Theory.

The Political Meaning of the Twentieth Century

The Fourth Political Theory is a conceptual matrix describing the possibility of an alternative to the political trend that has come to dominate the modern era. It emerges when postmodernity fully establishes itself in the territory of political philosophy. It is after this that the truth of modernity — i.e., the nature of the Dark Enlightenment, with which the Fourth Political Theory deals directly — is discovered. As long as the essence of the modern was concealed and its fundamental ontological and anthropological strategy was distributed among the three branches, the Fourth Political Theory was not possible, because the outcome of the struggle among the three political theories of the modern depended on the clarification of its deepest essence. And the Fourth Political Theory corresponds exactly to this essence — to that truth in the abyss (matter), of which Democritus spoke. Therefore, in order to describe the Fourth Political Theory in depth, it is necessary to look again at modernity and the dialectic of the clash of the three main political theories inherent in it.

To reiterate: the three main political ideologies of the modern era — liberalism (as the First Political Theory), Communism (as the Second Political Theory) and nationalism (as the Third Political Theory) — essentially exhaust and embody all aspects of the very paradigm of modern political philosophy. As we said earlier, in each of the three political theories the philosophical subject of modernity is treated differently: in liberalism as an individual, in Communism as a class, in Fascism and National Socialism as a state and a race, respectively.

These political concepts collided in the twentieth century and predetermined the structure of the world wars, the Cold War, alliances, unions and blocs. If World War I was a clash between a number of major national European powers, World War II was already a clash between all three ideological forces: liberals, represented by the West (USA, England), Communists, represented by the USSR, and Nazis/Fascists, represented by Mussolini’s Italy/Hitler’s Germany, as well as other movements close to them.

Accordingly, after the Third Political Theory had been defeated (Fascism and National Socialism), two political theories remained, the First and the Second, between which a cold war developed, until the First Political Theory (liberalism) defeated the Second (Communism) in 1989 and decisively in 1991.

The entire history of modernity was marked by these three political theories, which embodied the very matrix of New Age political philosophy. All of them followed the logic of the political philosophy of the Mother: all of them were materialist, evolutionist, progressivist, all of them viewed the structure of the world from the bottom up rather than from the top down, i.e., they were created on the basis of an immanent materialist doctrine.

Accordingly, the order in which they emerged and the order in which they disappeared (or were marginalised) also reflected a certain logic, as the battle of the three political ideologies was a battle over which of them more closely matched the paradigm of modernity, its truth. Communism claimed to contain this truth, viewing itself as a socialist and Communist society to be built after the end of the historical cycle of capitalism. Liberalism also saw itself as an expression of modernity as such, but, and this is less obvious, Fascism also considered itself a revolutionary doctrine reflecting the spirit of modernity, but in a different context, in different proportions, with different values from liberalism and Communism.

In any case, all three ideologies fought to be the one which embodied the spirit of modernity. Each thought it was the modern. After the defeat of Nazism, only two ideologies (liberalism and Communism) contested this right, and after 1989–1991 it turned out that liberalism had won this long battle.

That is, of the three political theories of the modern paradigm, only one has proved truly paradigmatic. Related to this are the process of globalisation and the universalisation of liberal ideology, which has now become the global ideology and the only ideology to win in the unfolding of political history — that is, it was victorious in the West and, due to the fundamental influence of the West, has largely spread around the world.

There is a direct link here to Francis Fukuyama’s assertion of ‘the end of history’. ‘The end of history’ is the final and irreversible victory of liberalism over its rivals. After 1991, liberalism was no longer one of the three ideologies, but the ideology of modernity itself.

Capitalism (liberalism) originally saw itself as the embodiment of the spirit of modernity, but this was not necessarily obvious to anyone except the representatives of liberalism itself. This was challenged by Communists and Fascists, and in principle the dispute between the three political theories was not resolved until several centuries later. At all stages there remained the possibility of a different turn of political events (and Communism put in a serious claim to be the embodiment of modernity and the ideological formula for the ‘end of history’). At one point, the successes of Hitler’s Germany were so impressive that there may well have been a belief that it was Nazism that would determine the ideological foundation for the future.

It was only at the end of the twentieth century that the unconditional matrix of world political history came to fruition, where the spirit of modernity won out in the form of liberalism. Liberalism defended its right to be not just one ideology, but an Ideology with a capital letter. Thus the First Political Theory of modernity also became the last, the final one. It is out of the victory of liberalism that we got the political philosophy of the postmodern. Correspondingly, the triumph of the individual as an atom allowed us to move to the sub-atomic level.

Thus the winner in the rivalry between the three ideological versions of modernity was determined. And practically at the same period, liberalism, having become dominant and singular, began to rapidly reveal its totalitarian nature. Meanwhile, the paradigm shift towards the post-modern, whose philosophical preconditions had been developed a few decades earlier but which began to take on a practical dimension in the realm of politics in the 1990s, began with steady acceleration. At the same time, a wave of gender politics and eco-politics was also emerging, heralding the rise of ‘Dark Liberalism’.

Modernity, victorious in liberalism, moved into the postmodern in a new — postliberal — stage. But this was only possible because all forms of collective identity (the Tradition paradigm) and the alternative artificial definitions of the political subject of the Second Political Theory (class) and the Third Political Theory (state, race) were abolished.

The individual is affirmed by liberals as the latest version of the most authentic human atom, and consequently as the philosophical foundation and political subject. And only after the victory of this ideology and the triumph of the human individual — as expressed in the ideology of civil society, the ideology of human rights, the ideology of globalisation and the world liberal capitalist market (the transition from global politics to global economy, with the abolition of history, as Fukuyama wrote) —, only at this moment did the door to the postmodern truly open. It was liberals who opened it, and therefore, in the ‘Dark Enlightenment’ paradigm, it is ‘Dark Liberalism’ that has the right of doctrinal and epistemological primacy.

Once the atom was confirmed as the basic moment of being, all further movement turned to the subatomic level. The phenomenology of political postphilosophy,1 or the political philosophy of the postmodern, is linked to this.

So, without the victory of liberalism, the victory of the postmodern would not have been possible. To be more precise, in theory, the post-modern could have been different — more likely Communist and less likely Fascist. However, the result of the twentieth century in the field of ideology is unambiguous: the political postmodern is based on the absolute dominance achieved by liberal ideology, the First Political Theory, which completely defeated the Second and Third ones.

This is roughly the context in which global society is being built. Global society is not yet a reality, it is a project. Nevertheless, it exists as a ‘concept’ and corresponds to a similar concept — the ‘global West’. When we say ‘the West’, we mean not only the geographical West, but also, for example, Japan and even the Pacific coast of China, where Western models in economy, culture and society prevail, as well as some countries that follow the Western way of development in the Pacific region (Singapore, Taiwan, etc.). ‘The West’ is global and ideological at the same time. Certainly, the West has not yet fully penetrated into the flesh and blood of all societies, peoples and civilisations, but nevertheless, this penetration is going on at full throttle, through markets, technology, culture, information, economics, politics, etc. The West is not just a collection of European and North American powers and societies. It is the very process of globalisation, ‘postmodernisation’ and the gradual spread of the codes (and stratifications, to use the term of Deleuze and Guattari) of Euro-American/ Euro-Atlantic culture to the entire planet. After the decisive victory of liberalism in the Cold War, the whole world has in a sense become ‘the West’, that is to say, an area of such territorialisation/deterritorialisation, which corresponds precisely to the liberal code of ‘assemblage’.

Accordingly, the agenda of global processes in world politics today is the dominance of liberalism and the assertion of its victory on a global scale, the elimination of nation-states (as we see in Europe) and the destruction of all forms of collective identity (nation, religion, gender, etc.). In this phase, modernity completes that destruction of vertical symmetries and organic collective identities which it began when the transition from traditional society (Platonism, Aristotelianism, religion) to modern society (materialism, democracy, secularism) was outlined.

1.  Dugin, Postphilosophy.

Alexander Dugin’s Politica Aeterna takes readers on a compelling journey through the timeless structures of the political Logos, uncovering their deep connections with philosophy, metaphysics, and ontology. Dugin masterfully explores politics as an eternal framework and then traces its dramatic evolution through the ages. By contrasting traditional and modern societies, he reveals how political ideas that once dominated can become marginalized or even “heretical” over time. The book brilliantly captures the tension between these opposing forces, showing how history itself brings certain political structures to the forefront while others recede into the background.

Dugin challenges us to rethink our understanding of political metaphysics, arguing that time distorts our perceptions and offers only partial truths shaped by specific historical moments. As we navigate through different phases of political history, our views are inevitably coloured by the era we live in. Politica Aeterna is a must-read for anyone fascinated by the deep philosophical roots of politics and the ever-evolving landscape of political thought.

Excerpt from the book: Politica Aeterna — Political Platonism & the Dark Enlightenment

 

The Political Meaning of the Twentieth Century

In this excerpt from the book Politica Aeterna: Political Platonism & the Dark Enlightenment, Alexander Dugin examines the ideological struggle between liberalism, communism and fascism in the twentieth century, arguing that liberalism’s ultimate victory paved the way for postmodernity, globalization and the erosion of collective identities, while creating the conditions for the emergence of the Fourth Political Theory.

The Political Meaning of the Twentieth Century

The Fourth Political Theory is a conceptual matrix describing the possibility of an alternative to the political trend that has come to dominate the modern era. It emerges when postmodernity fully establishes itself in the territory of political philosophy. It is after this that the truth of modernity — i.e., the nature of the Dark Enlightenment, with which the Fourth Political Theory deals directly — is discovered. As long as the essence of the modern was concealed and its fundamental ontological and anthropological strategy was distributed among the three branches, the Fourth Political Theory was not possible, because the outcome of the struggle among the three political theories of the modern depended on the clarification of its deepest essence. And the Fourth Political Theory corresponds exactly to this essence — to that truth in the abyss (matter), of which Democritus spoke. Therefore, in order to describe the Fourth Political Theory in depth, it is necessary to look again at modernity and the dialectic of the clash of the three main political theories inherent in it.

To reiterate: the three main political ideologies of the modern era — liberalism (as the First Political Theory), Communism (as the Second Political Theory) and nationalism (as the Third Political Theory) — essentially exhaust and embody all aspects of the very paradigm of modern political philosophy. As we said earlier, in each of the three political theories the philosophical subject of modernity is treated differently: in liberalism as an individual, in Communism as a class, in Fascism and National Socialism as a state and a race, respectively.

These political concepts collided in the twentieth century and predetermined the structure of the world wars, the Cold War, alliances, unions and blocs. If World War I was a clash between a number of major national European powers, World War II was already a clash between all three ideological forces: liberals, represented by the West (USA, England), Communists, represented by the USSR, and Nazis/Fascists, represented by Mussolini’s Italy/Hitler’s Germany, as well as other movements close to them.

Accordingly, after the Third Political Theory had been defeated (Fascism and National Socialism), two political theories remained, the First and the Second, between which a cold war developed, until the First Political Theory (liberalism) defeated the Second (Communism) in 1989 and decisively in 1991.

The entire history of modernity was marked by these three political theories, which embodied the very matrix of New Age political philosophy. All of them followed the logic of the political philosophy of the Mother: all of them were materialist, evolutionist, progressivist, all of them viewed the structure of the world from the bottom up rather than from the top down, i.e., they were created on the basis of an immanent materialist doctrine.

Accordingly, the order in which they emerged and the order in which they disappeared (or were marginalised) also reflected a certain logic, as the battle of the three political ideologies was a battle over which of them more closely matched the paradigm of modernity, its truth. Communism claimed to contain this truth, viewing itself as a socialist and Communist society to be built after the end of the historical cycle of capitalism. Liberalism also saw itself as an expression of modernity as such, but, and this is less obvious, Fascism also considered itself a revolutionary doctrine reflecting the spirit of modernity, but in a different context, in different proportions, with different values from liberalism and Communism.

In any case, all three ideologies fought to be the one which embodied the spirit of modernity. Each thought it was the modern. After the defeat of Nazism, only two ideologies (liberalism and Communism) contested this right, and after 1989–1991 it turned out that liberalism had won this long battle.

That is, of the three political theories of the modern paradigm, only one has proved truly paradigmatic. Related to this are the process of globalisation and the universalisation of liberal ideology, which has now become the global ideology and the only ideology to win in the unfolding of political history — that is, it was victorious in the West and, due to the fundamental influence of the West, has largely spread around the world.

There is a direct link here to Francis Fukuyama’s assertion of ‘the end of history’. ‘The end of history’ is the final and irreversible victory of liberalism over its rivals. After 1991, liberalism was no longer one of the three ideologies, but the ideology of modernity itself.

Capitalism (liberalism) originally saw itself as the embodiment of the spirit of modernity, but this was not necessarily obvious to anyone except the representatives of liberalism itself. This was challenged by Communists and Fascists, and in principle the dispute between the three political theories was not resolved until several centuries later. At all stages there remained the possibility of a different turn of political events (and Communism put in a serious claim to be the embodiment of modernity and the ideological formula for the ‘end of history’). At one point, the successes of Hitler’s Germany were so impressive that there may well have been a belief that it was Nazism that would determine the ideological foundation for the future.

It was only at the end of the twentieth century that the unconditional matrix of world political history came to fruition, where the spirit of modernity won out in the form of liberalism. Liberalism defended its right to be not just one ideology, but an Ideology with a capital letter. Thus the First Political Theory of modernity also became the last, the final one. It is out of the victory of liberalism that we got the political philosophy of the postmodern. Correspondingly, the triumph of the individual as an atom allowed us to move to the sub-atomic level.

Thus the winner in the rivalry between the three ideological versions of modernity was determined. And practically at the same period, liberalism, having become dominant and singular, began to rapidly reveal its totalitarian nature. Meanwhile, the paradigm shift towards the post-modern, whose philosophical preconditions had been developed a few decades earlier but which began to take on a practical dimension in the realm of politics in the 1990s, began with steady acceleration. At the same time, a wave of gender politics and eco-politics was also emerging, heralding the rise of ‘Dark Liberalism’.

Modernity, victorious in liberalism, moved into the postmodern in a new — postliberal — stage. But this was only possible because all forms of collective identity (the Tradition paradigm) and the alternative artificial definitions of the political subject of the Second Political Theory (class) and the Third Political Theory (state, race) were abolished.

The individual is affirmed by liberals as the latest version of the most authentic human atom, and consequently as the philosophical foundation and political subject. And only after the victory of this ideology and the triumph of the human individual — as expressed in the ideology of civil society, the ideology of human rights, the ideology of globalisation and the world liberal capitalist market (the transition from global politics to global economy, with the abolition of history, as Fukuyama wrote) —, only at this moment did the door to the postmodern truly open. It was liberals who opened it, and therefore, in the ‘Dark Enlightenment’ paradigm, it is ‘Dark Liberalism’ that has the right of doctrinal and epistemological primacy.

Once the atom was confirmed as the basic moment of being, all further movement turned to the subatomic level. The phenomenology of political postphilosophy,1 or the political philosophy of the postmodern, is linked to this.

So, without the victory of liberalism, the victory of the postmodern would not have been possible. To be more precise, in theory, the post-modern could have been different — more likely Communist and less likely Fascist. However, the result of the twentieth century in the field of ideology is unambiguous: the political postmodern is based on the absolute dominance achieved by liberal ideology, the First Political Theory, which completely defeated the Second and Third ones.

This is roughly the context in which global society is being built. Global society is not yet a reality, it is a project. Nevertheless, it exists as a ‘concept’ and corresponds to a similar concept — the ‘global West’. When we say ‘the West’, we mean not only the geographical West, but also, for example, Japan and even the Pacific coast of China, where Western models in economy, culture and society prevail, as well as some countries that follow the Western way of development in the Pacific region (Singapore, Taiwan, etc.). ‘The West’ is global and ideological at the same time. Certainly, the West has not yet fully penetrated into the flesh and blood of all societies, peoples and civilisations, but nevertheless, this penetration is going on at full throttle, through markets, technology, culture, information, economics, politics, etc. The West is not just a collection of European and North American powers and societies. It is the very process of globalisation, ‘postmodernisation’ and the gradual spread of the codes (and stratifications, to use the term of Deleuze and Guattari) of Euro-American/ Euro-Atlantic culture to the entire planet. After the decisive victory of liberalism in the Cold War, the whole world has in a sense become ‘the West’, that is to say, an area of such territorialisation/deterritorialisation, which corresponds precisely to the liberal code of ‘assemblage’.

Accordingly, the agenda of global processes in world politics today is the dominance of liberalism and the assertion of its victory on a global scale, the elimination of nation-states (as we see in Europe) and the destruction of all forms of collective identity (nation, religion, gender, etc.). In this phase, modernity completes that destruction of vertical symmetries and organic collective identities which it began when the transition from traditional society (Platonism, Aristotelianism, religion) to modern society (materialism, democracy, secularism) was outlined.

1.  Dugin, Postphilosophy.

Alexander Dugin’s Politica Aeterna takes readers on a compelling journey through the timeless structures of the political Logos, uncovering their deep connections with philosophy, metaphysics, and ontology. Dugin masterfully explores politics as an eternal framework and then traces its dramatic evolution through the ages. By contrasting traditional and modern societies, he reveals how political ideas that once dominated can become marginalized or even “heretical” over time. The book brilliantly captures the tension between these opposing forces, showing how history itself brings certain political structures to the forefront while others recede into the background.

Dugin challenges us to rethink our understanding of political metaphysics, arguing that time distorts our perceptions and offers only partial truths shaped by specific historical moments. As we navigate through different phases of political history, our views are inevitably coloured by the era we live in. Politica Aeterna is a must-read for anyone fascinated by the deep philosophical roots of politics and the ever-evolving landscape of political thought.

Excerpt from the book: Politica Aeterna — Political Platonism & the Dark Enlightenment