Russian nationalism is gaining in political influence argues the Financial Times. Russia’s so-called “ultra-nationalists” (and I do wonder what the difference is between nationalism and its “ultra-” variety) have been steadily climbing in political influence, particularly among Russia’s elite. Their big political bump has come with Russia success in Georgia which proved to them that Russia was indeed back. The FT reports,
Against the backdrop of conflict in Georgia and deteriorating relations with the west, Russia’s ultra-nationalist thinkers are starting to exert unprecedented influence. The wide acceptance of a group of ideas once dismissed as laughable signals a new era in Russia’s foreign relations, as Moscow seeks to protect what President Dmitry Medvedev calls a “region of privileged interest” in parts of the former Soviet Union.
One of Russia’s chief theorists of Euraisanism, Aleksandr Dugin agrees with this political shift. He told the FT,
“The people that formed the centre under [former president, now prime minister Vladimir] Putin will now become marginal. And another pole will appear that did not exist under Putin at all. That is the army, the military and patriotic movements. That is us. Under Putin we were the extremists: respectable, yes, but radicals. Now we are moving right into the centre.”
I’m not too familiar with Eurasianism or Dugin, but the a recent LA Times interview gives a sample of his take on current events.
I know about you and Heidegger. Zizek argues that H’s move toward Nazism was in his thought about Being and the State. How I couldn’t tell you at this point assuming I will ever understand it. You can actually find the chapter in question here if you’re interested.
I haven’t read Z’s passage yet (thanks for the link!) but the basic claim is not that original.
Sein und Zeit doesn’t really discuss the State, nor does Heidegger in general before or after that brief sliver of time IIRC, but the material in Book 2 about Fate and the People does sound pretty fascoid and I suppose one could graft that onto the State if one wanted to.
Cool! Zizek refers to a lecture course the text of which must have been released by Heidegger’s estate after my grad work. I never heard of it, and I’ve read like 85% of wverything the guy ever wrote!
You’re the only Heideggerian (is there such a thing?) I know, so I would be interested in your thoughts. I think Zizek’s overall point is that H made the correct theoretical move, but in the wrong direction i.e. to the right instead of the left. But I haven’t finished the chapter so I can’t explain why. Not that I think a first reading will do the trick. Maybe, maybe on the third.
Sure, I’ll look at the text. My emphasis was on the early Heidegger (say 1920-30) and the on the more technical aspects of his ontologyin SuZ and its relationship with Aristotle and Christian theology and I haven’t read the main text Zizek seems to be relying in (which seems to have appeared recently), but I’ll give you my input.