THE FOURTH POLITICAL THEORY BY ALEXANDER DUGIN : Not much there. You know, some

THE FOURTH POLITICAL THEORY BY ALEXANDER DUGIN : Not much there.

You know, some day practitioners of the next evolutionary step in philosophy will look at we Post Analytic philosophers the way that we look at Analytic and Continental philosophers today: as well- meaning, and advocating good ideas, but doing so inarticulately because of some content or assumption pervasive in our arguments.

Dugin’s book tries to express aspirational ideas but he does so with quaint continental language. The problematic content of this language is at least the following:

1) lack of knowledge of formal institutions and how to use them to establish norms using incentives rather than advocacy. Habits and imitation rather than conscious and rational adoption of any behavior.

2) Lack of knowledge about economics and the economic impact of certain norms on the economy, and therefore the feedback loop into any ideology and it’s desired norms by the economic outcome produced by norms.

3) the circularity of any argument that relies upon emotional reactions that are based upon learned values. Versus the dependent arguments that rely upon demonstrated instincts independent of learned systems of values.

4) the structure of political ideology as religious yet open to voluntary adoption via linguistic argument rather than involuntary institutional incentives.

The “ten planks” were far more effective than all Marxist rhetoric ever was. And any hope of altering actions must place a cost on an adherent. Certainly consumer capitalism is difficult to choose not to adopt. It’s incentives are constant enough to override our social instincts.

So while I agree with Daugin and Benoist, that we need a fourth political theory, I suspect it will have to result from scientific arguments, recommended institutions and policy for those institutions to execute. It will certainly require a narrative. But it will not be a narrative constructed of continental and therefore circular, and religious language.

I’m sure our friends David Gordon or Rod Long could levy superior and more precise criticism. But I can’t. I don’t find it rewarding or useful to master the counter arguments to phlogiston theory.

This isn’t to say that there arent good ideas in the book. There are. And after the first chapter or two it improves. And for continental writing it’s well written.

It just not actionableoir desirable.