Under capitalism, the capitalists rule. Under socialism – representatives of the working class, the proletariat. Under Nazism and Fascism – racial or national elite, “the new aristocracy”. Under Fourth Political Theory should rule the People (Narod in Russian, akin to the German Volk: not “Population”).

Modern Russia – has capitalism. Hence, it is ruled by capitalists. Therefore not Narod. In order to build Russia, in which will rule the Narod, it is necessary to carry out an anti-capitalist (anti-oligarchic, at least) Revolution. Financial magnates should be excluded from political power. And that’s the main thing. Everyone should choose – power OR wealth. Choose wealth, forget about power. Choose power – forget about wealth.

The revolution must take place in three stages:

1. Ultimatum to all major oligarchs (one hundred persons of Forbes list and a hundred more in hiding, but we all know whom) swear their allegiance to the Russian assets (all foreign and strategic national assets will now be controlled by special bodies).

2. Nationalization of major private properties of strategic importance.

3. Translation of patriotic representatives of big capital in the category of officials with the voluntary transfer of the property to the State. Defeat in the civil rights (including the deprivation of the right to vote, participation in election campaigns, etc.) to those that prefer to preserve capital in non-strategic, but in a significant scale.

The state should become an instrument of the People. This system be called as such “laocracy”, literally, “power of the people (laos – Greek for “people”).

In a bloody battle for Ukraine, we see the true face of capital – Ukrainian big business (oligarchs – Poroshenko, Kolomojsky, Ahemetov etc.) lead the genocide against the People; Russian oligarchs betray the people by engaging a criminal agreement with Ukrainian class partners. And all this is in the interests of the global oligarchy – the world capitalist system, centered in the United States.

Now exposes all incompatibility of Russia and capitalism. Either capitalism, or Russia. This is most clearly understood by Novorossia leaders. They, happening at the forefront of the whole Russian People, in fact started this Russian People’s Revolution. That is why it’s them that so furiously attacked the devotees junta mercenaries from the ranks of Ukrainian swine-fascists, as as well liberal capitalist elements in the fifth and sixth columns from Russia. And most importantly they have become existential enemies of the U.S. and the World Government. Strelkov, Gubarev, Purgin, Pushilin, Mozgovoy – challenged global capital. And they did it on behalf of the People. In this case, on behalf of the Russian People. But if supporters of ukrainian People were consistent, they would have been allies of this Revolution, and not miserable hirelings of global capital – as they are now. Turning to the side of Novorossia, Ukrainians turn not as much to Russia, and not even on the Russian side, but on the side of the People, the People with a capital letter, which fights in a deadly battle with the world of Capital, to the side of LAOCRACY.

Therefore the coming campaign against Kiev will not just revenge and not only the liberation of the ancient Russian lands, it will be a campaign against Capital in favor of laocracy, the power of the People, for the People’s State. I do not think that the Russian oligarchy will support this, it can not misunderstand that it’s days are numbered. It’s why it so hysterically screams “do not send troops”, since victory of Novorossia will inevitably mean a revival of Russia itself, the awakening of the People. That is the reason for desperate attempts to betray Novorossia. This agony of the Russian oligarchy and its public hirelings. Their task – to destroy the heroes of the Revolution of Novorossian Revolution – not only Popular, but also social, and destroy it in the bud.


  1. Laocracy seems vague. What does this power to the volk entail? What kind of power? If it is the liberation of man from ‘wage-cuckery’ of the bourgeois capitalist system, then surely it would require the utter rejection of the Modern employment paradigm involving the sale of labor, and necessitate a return to organic hierarchy of roles where labor is static and is never sold on the market, but is in some way tied to the land. This differentiates a true ‘liberation’ rather than simply re-shuffling commmunism. Jailing the obviously corrupt is a start, for any presence of such people would corrupt the zemsky sobor. Soros needs worse than jail, but I won’t say what.


    • The answer to the failed capitalist bourgeois system, lies on the works of Gregor and Otto Strasser, regarding a National Socialist(not as implemented by Hitler) economic, political and social system.

      Fascism is a good alternative too…or Theocracy.

      The options and alternatives are many, the moment the false Left-Right Spectrum ceases to exist.



      • “The answer to the failed capitalist bourgeois system, lies on the works of Gregor and Otto Strasser”

        This strikes me as being a similar cop-out to the Trotskyist position within Marxism.


        • There’s one very big difference though:

          Trotskyism is a direct product of the Enlightenment, Modernity, the machine spirit of Rationalism, atheism and materialism.

          Strasserism lies on the exact opposite side, it’s a product of Counter-Enlightenment thought, Romanticism and rejects the rule of machine over man as well as many concepts of Rationalism. Strasserism is centered around the notion of “Nation”, “People” and “Tradition”. Reminds you of anything these days? Plus, Strasserist Socialism lays its foundations on the Guild System before Modernity. So Strasserism itself is not a product of Modernity like Trotskyism.



          • The similarity is not between Strasser and Trotsky, but between their latter-day followers. In both cases a betrayed martyr figure serves to redeem a movement, and allow those who identify with it to cop-out on the actual results of that movement.


          • There’s a big difference between a Philosopher and a Mass Movement. Alfred Rosenberg was the father of intellectual-philosophical National Socialism, but Adolph Hitler was the man, the Leader who created the movement, despite the fact that he was not a big intellectual and philosophical figure.

            Philosophy is one thing, Demagogy is another.

            I’m talking about Philosophical Strasserism, the art of demagogy, a crucial part of every mass movement is something completely different.

            There can be therefore, a Philosopher-Leader OR a Leader-Demagogue of the Mass Movement alongside an intellectual Philosopher, much like the Conservative Movement in the US has Trump as a Leader and Steve Bannon as the Philosopher.

            The same could be said about Vladimir Putin and Aleksandr Dugin.



          • On the other hand, as I said there can be also a Philosopher-Leader, much like Plato said in his “Republic”(Πολιτεία) about the King-Philosopher figure.

            Such a figure was Mao Zedong and Lenin.



  2. Laocracy, is exactly what Dimitri Kitsikis proposes, propagated through the ideology of National Bolshevism, a mixture of Communism and Fascism.

    I would much like to ask Mr. Dugin’s opinion on Fascism. I consider Fascism to be the best form of governing a state as far as Modernity is concerned. That is, because Plato himself in his masterpiece “The Republic”(Η Πολιτεία) describes a form of government totally classified according to skill. Because of that, the value and fake importance of money, completely disappears, as the People are being ruled by a King-Philosopher and his Spiritual Aristocracy. Clearly, National Socialism and Fascism were the only two regimes very similar to Plato’s Republic, despite the fact that National Socialists considered the Aristocracy to be directed related to a certain phenotype, in Germany’s case, the Nordic and Nordid phenotype. Fascism however, at least theoretically, proposes an Aristocracy of Skill.

    Now, the People see their Leader as an inner and outter reflection of their Collective Spirit and Cultural Soul. That is, there can be no power of the people, no Laocracy, without the Leader.

    May I ask your thoughts on that?


    Liked by 1 person

    • For Dugin’s view of Fascism and the “Third Position”, see The Fourth Political Theory

      We completely reject the Fascism of Hitler and Mussolini, although not everything in the “Nationalist” orbit. You seem to be talking about some sort of theoretical Fascism that sounds more like an aristocracy.

      My views on that are closest to Alain de Benoist:

      “The keyword here is competence. The idea according to which the
      best government is comprised of ‘those who know’ stretches back to
      Antiquity. Also ancient is the notion that democracy operates a
      negative selection. Socrates himself, according to Plato, blamed the Athenians for discussing political matters ‘without having learned and without having any teacher’.[34] Similarly, out of hostility toward the law of numbers, public opinion very frequently accepts the theory according to which procedures for political selection should primarily promote ‘competent men’ — an expression which in our age is increasingly being taken as a synonym for ‘experts’ and ‘technicians’.

      “This stance in favour of ‘competence’ is ambiguous to say the least. First, no single definition of ‘competence’ exists, for competence can take many different forms. Most importantly, it is very dangerous to identify competence with knowledge, as anti-democratic critics almost invariably do. Max Weber [35] has shown what it is that makes the scientist different from the politician. The politician is not such because he possesses any specific form of ‘knowledge’, but because he is the one who must decide what goal knowledge should serve. The politician is not a scientist but a decision-maker. A statesman is not incompetent because he possesses little knowledge, but because he does not know how to draft a policy. The politician must no doubt surround himself with ‘competent men’ and ‘technicians’, if for no other reason than to entrust them with finding the means to implement his decisions (and in this respect, political action is not foreign to knowledge). But it is one thing to surround oneself with technicians and experts, and quite another to charge these people with identifying the objectives to be pursued. To wish to put the government into the hands of ‘experts’ is to forget the fact that the judgement of experts must itself be reassessed and re-evaluated, as political decision-making implies both conflicts of interest and a number of possible choices. Now, our age, which has previously bowed to the myth of decision-making via ‘technical knowledge’, is increasingly forgetful of all this. An acceptance of the operative role of experts may thus quickly lead to the legitimising of technocracy. Under the pretext that the increasing complexity of public affairs makes politics necessarily dependent upon ‘those who know’, the people are being stripped of their sovereignty, while the very notion of politics goes up in smoke.”


      • Thank you for your answer.

        The most competent always advance strictly because of Natural Selection. The best is always the best no matter what, i.e. he is always recognizable despite the political background surrounding him. Aristocracy is based on Natural Selection and on Heredity.

        Hitler himself, regarding populism-laocracy described his regime as “Völkisch” i.e. populist/populistic.

        Hitler made two deadly mkstakes:

        a) Anti-slavic racial hatred
        b) Antisemitic hatred.

        Anti-slavism stretches far back however, even before the time of the Second German Reich, it is kind of innate to the German soul, seen as a constant struggle between the Aryan Germanic forces of the Christian West, a great impersonation being the Teutonic Order, and the Slavs of the East, seen as more Eurasian and Turanid, than European, although this view is generally false, as Russian and German people share the same ancestral roots from Scandinavia and the Baltic region.

        Antisemitism was a result of anti-bourgeois Fascist mentality. The average Jew was deemed a very striking incarnation of the average cosmopolitan bourgeois with no root(see Blut und Boden as contrast to cosmopolitanism).

        However, in a nutshell National Socialism was deeply embodied with the rationalist idea of “phenotype”, pagan in nature, and generally anti-Christian.

        Fascism, was in my opinion the best form of Laocracy but had one major disadvantage:

        His chauvinist Imperialistic Nationalism. Apart from that it is an ideology in full resurgence as of now, as we are experiencing through the rise of populism everywhere in Europe nowadays.



Stauffenberg was Right!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s