The 21st Century and Russian Political Party

Introduction:

In the 1920s, a political movement called Eurasianism started to rise in the Russian émigré, a community that emigrated from the territory of former imperial Russia. However, it was not until the 1990s that Eurasianism became popular in the USRR.

This movement, sometimes called “the Greater Russia,” has a cultural purpose that substantiates Russia’s imperial path historically conditioned by the Asian presence in Russia’s destiny. It also posited that Russian civilization does not belong in the European or Asian’s category.

This philosophical doctrine was born out of denial of the values of Western civilization and the Communist international values.

In the forties, the ideology of eurasianism seems to have ceased but has revived in Russia and even received a new unprecedented boost from the formal regime.

The twenty-first-century world has become complicated because the once-innovative ideas that the Europeans had are no longer promising.
In this essay, we’ll discuss the definition of Eurasianism, how its strategy works, and its evolution the time. Also, we’ll mention their cultural politics and their development.

Definition of Eurasianism:

Eurasianism was a set of cultural, philosophical, and political concepts centered on the idea that Eurasia – defined as the former Soviet space minus the Baltics and plus Mongolia and sometimes northwest China – has an independent civilizational identity and development path.

Eurasianism focuses on four levels of analysis: the state, the people, the culture group, and the civilization. People and culture groups are groupings based on shared behavior, and civilization encompasses them all through a set of shared values and what is referred to as “common historical destiny.”

Day-to-day political power rests with the state, but this is underwritten by the civilizational values of the people and culture group it governs.
The state needs to strengthen civilizational values. Organizing and maintaining ideological power in the form of civilizational values is their key, if not the key aspect of Eurasianist strategy.

How is power globally distributed?

Geography and civilizations:

For Eurasianism, geography determines the global distribution of power, but not in the sense of resource distribution. Instead, geography shapes the existence, size, and compatibility of people, sculpture groups, and civilizations.[footnoteRef:1] [1: ]
Gumilev’s theory of ethnogenesis states that humanity adapts to local environments by changing their values and behavior; each people, culture, and civilization, therefore, corresponds to a specific place of development, and their values represent a specialized and unique adaption to earth’s geography.

Civilizational level mestorazvities generally consist of continental-sized ecological blocs: Europe’s wooded peninsulas for the Western European civilization, the desert plains of the Arabian desert for the Arab Muslim civilization, and so on.

But in Europe and Asia’s northern reaches, classical Eurasianists claimed the existence of not simply a bloc but a complete geographic system conformed by three biomes of Eurasia: regional bands of tundra, taiga, steppe, and desert span nearly half the globe in a regular progression, hosting the culture groups of the Uralics, Russians, Northern Turkics and Southern Turkics. These bands are bound together thanks to three zones of interaction: the Russian plain, the Turkestani plain, and the West Siberian plain. These plains eventually induced what Gumilyov called “komplimentarnost,” or mutual trust between the culture groups, by acting as regions of ecological and intercultural exchange. This mutual trust is from which emerged a unified “Eurasian civilization. “

So from geography, there are three Eurasianists concepts; first, Eurasianists derive several points: Eurasia exists naturally as an independent system, meaning that the Eurasian civilization it birthed possesses its own unique values; second, these values represent a unique adaptation to their environment, as do the values of other civilizations. Third, the ideological differences are. Therefore, a reflection of earth’s diversity and any talk of universal values is largely meaningless.

The Thalassocratic Challenge of the West

In an ideal Eurasianist world, every civilization would, in this way, leave each other alone to develop in its own way, but there is one civilization that will not do that. Classical Eurasianists identified it as the “Romano-Germanic” civilization of Western Europe, while for the Neo Eurasianists, it is the “Atlantic” civilization of the Anglophone states.

The key feature of their mestorazvities is peninsular or Islandic geography, whose sea-based nature encouraged commerce and trade.
These, in turn, produce civilizational values of individual competition, materialism, and standardization, underlying modern-day Western liberal, rationalist, and universalist ideologies.

Did you like this example?

234

12