> I am not going to lie and pretend I know what duganism is Pete I would have to actually look it up and I will (swear I will lol)
I think he qualifies as "moderately obscure" in the Anglosphere so I wouldn't worry about that. Fringe internet politics here; he is a somewhat bigger deal in Russia. I think this is maybe the third time I have ever heard someone mention him. I had to look him up first time. Everyone's gotta look up everything.
Wikipedia's not exactly kind to the guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Dugin . He seems like Ayn Rand but if she hated American capitalism instead of the USSR. I don't know how popular he is beyond being a punchline (like Ayn Rand) and he has said some stuff that's unobjectionable to anybody (like Ayn Rand), some stuff that is appealing mainly to people on his side of the fence (like Ayn Rand), and then some stuff that nobody wants to stand by (like Ayn Rand). It's just that he hates globalism and capitalism and atheism.
@p@Grandtheftautism@MisterRogersSnapped@sysrq@fba >he is a somewhat bigger deal in Russia He isn't, really, aside from a bunch of fringe blogs. For each mention of him in runet there's like 15 mentions in anglosphere.
> Any form of Russian nationalism should accept the positives of the Communist past.
I don't know that this needs to be the case, but in general it's better to recognize real things and this is not something that typically happens in politics.
> I don't know where you are getting this from.
Like I said, I've seen him mentioned maybe three times and everything else comes from me reading between the lines on Wikipedia. I have no dog in this fight: if he didn't say that, he didn't say it.
> I took a look at wikipedia's source from 2012 about Dugin saying "we are for Stalin and for the Soviet Union" and came up with this:
It sounds like he didn't say it.
> I have been on and off reading his posts for some years now
Well, you could proceed with pointing out areas where I am incorrect, or you could back up a little bit and explain Dugin. I think the latter is a better approach, because I started off by saying I'm not a Dugin expert and he is somewhat obscure.
> This is a very bad way to think
I don't require any convincing on this point. Full agreement.
NazBol, unironic "Stalin good". I'm speculating, I don't know if everything I have read about him is a lie or not, or how these things were received locally, or if he's just a mouthpiece for some kind of FSB glowop of what. For example, wikkypeeja says he invented invading Ukraine, and I don't think he invented that. It's a common trope in the media (spit, spit) to paint a guy as reckless and stupid and then, when people can't rationalize the "evil master plan" with "short-sighted idiot", you solve that by insinuating that someone else is pulling the stings. (I think it's safe to say that, given his career trajectory, if Putin were reckless or stupid, he would have been dead 20 years before he made it into the newspaper.)
> Ayan Rand was a nutjob from beginning to end.
She seemed like her main idea was "That was terrible...I want exactly the opposite of it." I can understand it on a personal level but I don't think it makes a coherent philosophy.
I think she was sort of propped up over here because the Cold War loved defectors and often misrepresented because the lefties hated anything that could be construed as anti-Soviet.
> It's the completely deranged Western politics of the past decades that make Dugin seem somewhat radical.
I think anyone saying "Stalin was *basically* correct, you just need a couple of tweaks" is radical even outside loopy US/EU politics. Not to sling mud at Dugin, who I can't say I understand outside being able to get the joke sysrq made, but I don't think it's a stretch to say he sounds pretty radical.
>NazBol This categorization can vary from "Nationalists taking tankies into account" to "edgy populism" to "commies appropriating Nazis". Any form of Russian nationalism should accept the positives of the Communist past. This is evident if you notice how certain communist aspects, such as the public works and the Red army, are perceived.
>Dugin on Stalin I don't know where you are getting this from. I have been on and off reading his posts for some years now and never came across something like this. I took a look at wikipedia's source from 2012 about Dugin saying "we are for Stalin and for the Soviet Union" and came up with this: >Question : The patriotic press is read by Soviet patriots and religious patriots, Orthodox Christians, Muslims and others. The introduction of religious lessons drives a wedge into the patriotic camp, and this split becomes very significant, don’t you think? >Alexander Dugin : [...] wanting to unite Soviet and Russian patriots, and every time, at every stage, during one campaign or another, hostile forces manage to separate us on different sides in order to assert their disgusting Russophobic models. This must be stopped, we are for Stalin and for the Soviet Union, but the fact that Orthodoxy is the stronghold of our spiritual identity is clear to any bearer of Soviet or Orthodox identity. And it does makes sense in this context because that's his main position, to construct a Russian national identity, and in order to do so you must take into account the Communist in order to be able to include the part of the population that is still pro-Soviet.
>She seemed like her main idea was "That was terrible...I want exactly the opposite of it." This is a very bad way to think and always leads to failure no matter what your original intentions were.
>and then some stuff that nobody wants to stand by W-which ones? Are you talking about things he said 20 years ago? Ayan Rand was a nutjob from beginning to end. Dugin's positions are not nearly as extreme, especially if viewed in a Russian political context. It's the completely deranged Western politics of the past decades that make Dugin seem somewhat radical.