A.

Dugin Counter-hegemony in the Theory of Multi-polar World The most important aspect of the theory of a multipolar world is the concept counter-hegemony originally formulated in the context of a critical theory of International Relations (IR). In the transition from critical theory to the theory of a multipolar world (MPW), this concept undergoes certain semantic transformations that must be disassembled in more detail. To do this, recall the basic principles of the theory of hegemony within critical theory. Understanding the "hegemony" in realism The concept of hegemony in the critical theory is based on the theories of Antonio Gramsci. It is necessary to distinguish between the concept of hegemony in gramscism and neogramscianism and how hegemony understand the realist and neorealist trend in IR. Classical realists use the term "hegemony" in a relative sense and understand by it the "actual and substantial superiority of the potential power of a single power on the potential of the other, often neighboring countries." Hegemony may well be a regional phenomenon, as the determination is made whether or not a political entity "hegemony," depends on what scale we use a consideration. In this sense, the term is found in Thucydides, who spoke about the hegemony of Athens and of the hegemony of Sparta during the Peloponnesian War, classical realism is using it in exactly the same up to the present time. Such a conception of hegemony can be called "strategic" and "relative". In neo-realism "hegemony" is understood in a global (structural) context. The main difference from classical realism is that here the "hegemony" can not be regarded as a regional phenomenon, and it is always global. In neorealism K. Waltz, for example, approved the balance of the two hegemonies (bipolar world) as the optimal structure of the balance of power on a global scale. R. Gilpin believes that hegemony may well be combined with unipolar, that is, there may be a global hegemony (today this function is performed by the United States). In both cases, the hegemony of the realists interpreted as a way of relating to each other the potential might of different powers. Understanding hegemony in Gramsci in radically different and placed in a completely different theoretical plane. To avoid incorrect use of the term in IR, and especially in the MPW should

dwell on the political theory of Gramsci, in the context of which the hegemony is considered a priority in the critical theory and MPW. In addition, this analysis will see more clearly the conceptual gap between critical theory and MPW. The hegemony of the concept of Antonio Gramsci Antonio Gramsci, bases his theory, later called "gramscism", based on a rethinking of Marxism and its practical implementation in the historical practice. As a Marxist, Antonio Gramsci is sure that the socio-political history of completely predetermined by the economic factor. Like all Marxists, he explains the superstructure (superstructure, Aufbau) through basis (infrastructure, Basis). Bourgeois society is the quintessence of class society, where the process of operation reaches the most concentrated expression in relation to the ownership of the means of production and in the assignment of the bourgeoisie of surplus value produced in the manufacturing process. The inequality in the economic sphere (the base), and the rule of capital over labor is the essence of capitalism and determines the entire social, political and cultural semantics (superstructure). This idea is shared by all Marxists, and there is nothing new or original. But Antonio Gramsci wonders how proletarian socialist revolution was possible in Russia, where the point of view of Marx (to analyze the situation in the Russian Empire in the XIX century, but in the long term prediction) and from the point of view of classical European Marxism of the early twentieth century, the objective state basis (lack of development of capitalist relations, a small percentage of the urban proletariat, the predominance of the agricultural sector in the total GDP of the country, the absence of the bourgeois political system, etc.) preclude the possibility of coming to power of the Communist Party. Nevertheless, Lenin made this possible and started the construction of socialism. Gramsci conceptualize this phenomenon as fundamentally important, calling it "Leninism". Leninism in the understanding of Gramsci, there is an avant-garde, anticipatory action consolidated and strong political superstructure (in the person of the Communist Party of Bolsheviks) to seize political power. As soon as it becomes fact and the revolution is successful, it should be the rapid development of the base, a filling-accelerated pace of the economic realities that have not been realized under capitalism: industrialization, modernization, "electrification", "public education." So concludes Gramsci, in certain circumstances, politics (superstructure) is able to stay ahead of

the economy (the basis). The Communist Party can go in front of the "natural" development of historical processes. Consequently, Leninism proves the existence of substantial autonomy for the add-in basis. But Leninism, as understood Gramsci, confined to the field of political superstructure segment - where the laws of power solves the problem of domination. Gramsci argues that the superstructure is another important segment that is not political in every sense of the word - that is, the party and paired directly with questions of political power. He calls it a "civil society." Such determination shall be accompanied by an explanation: "Civil Society in the understanding of Gramsci," as he puts it in the meaning of the concept is not entirely coincide with the fact that it is endowed with, for example, in the liberal theories. Civil society, according to Gramsci, is the area of intellectual activity in the broadest sense, the less of it direct political (party, state, administrative) activity. Civil society - a zone of deployment of smart areas of society, including the science, culture, philosophy, art, analysis, journalism, etc. For the Marxist Gramsci this area, as well as the whole superstructure of course, expresses the laws of the basis. But ... Leninism shows that expressing the laws of the basis, in some cases, the add-in can operate relatively autonomously, going ahead of the curve processes unfolding in the basis. Experience a revolution in Russia in the historical example shows how this is implemented in the segment of the political superstructure. Here Gramsci puts forward a hypothesis: if this is the case in the political sphere of the superstructure, why not something like this be in the area of "civil society"? From this is born gramscist concept of "hegemony." It aims to show that in the intellectual field (= "civil society by Gramsci") there is something analogous to the economic differential (Capital vs Labour) in the basis differential and political superstructure in the (bourgeois parties and the government vs the proletarian party and the government - for example, the Soviet Union). This third differential and Gramsci calls the "hegemony" that is, a set of strategies of domination of bourgeois consciousness of the proletarian consciousness in conditions of relative autonomy with respect to both politics and the economy. Another German sociologist Werner Sombart, exploring the bourgeois sociology has shown that comfort can be valuable as the Third Estate, which it partly is, and other social groups that do not know and do not have. Hegel's "Phenomenology of spirit" likewise said that the slave uses for self-reflection is not the consciousness, but consciousness of the Lord. This item was laid by Marx as the basis

of Communist ideology. Following this chain of thought, Gramsci concludes that the adoption or rejection of hegemony (= structures of bourgeois consciousness) can not directly depend neither on the fact of belonging to the bourgeois class (factor basis), or from direct political involvement in the bourgeois (or antibourgeois) the party or administrative system. Be on the side of hegemony or against it is, in Gramsci, a matter of free choice intellectual. When consciously intellectual exercises such a choice, he is from the "traditional" intellectual, is "organic", that is, consciously choose their position relative hegemony. This implies an important conclusion: to oppose the intellectual hegemony may well also in the society in which capitalist relations in the basis and the political domination of the bourgeoisie in the superstructure prevail. Intellectual can reject or accept the hegemony of the free, because it has a gap of freedom, similar to that which is in the political to the economic (as the experience of Bolshevism in Russia.) In other words, you can be the bearer of proletarian consciousness and stand on the side of the working class and just society, being in the heart of bourgeois society. It all depends on intellectual choice: hegemony - it is a matter of conscience. Gramsci himself came up with the concept for the analysis of political developments in Italy of the 1920s - 30s. During this period, according to his analysis, in this country quite ripe conditions for socialist revolution - and the basis (developed industrial capitalism and the intensification of class contradictions and class struggle), and in the superstructure (political successes consolidated the Left parties). But these seemingly favorable conditions, further analyses of Gramsci, the leftist forces were obliged by the failure of the fact that in the intellectual sphere in Italy was dominated by representatives of the hegemony that is, introducing bourgeois stereotypes and cliches, even where it was at odds with the economic and political realities and preferences of active anti-bourgeois circles. This, in his view, and Mussolini took advantage, turning hegemony in their favor (fascism, from the point of view of communists was a veiled form of domination of the bourgeois class) and to prevent artificially socialist revolution is brewing due to the natural historical course of events. In other words, driving a (relatively) successful political battles, the Italian Communists, for Gramsci, lost sight of the "civil society", the intellectual sphere, "metapolitical" struggle, in which he saw the cause of their defeat. In this form gramscism has been adopted by the European Left (especially the New Left), and since the 1960s left-wing

movement in Europe gramscism to have put into practice. The Left (Marxist) intellectuals (Sartre, Camus, Aragon, Foucault, etc.) were able to introduce anti-bourgeois concepts and theories in the center of the social and cultural life, using publishing houses, newspapers, clubs and university departments, which were an integral part of the capitalist economy and acted in the political context of domination of the bourgeois system. Thus, they have prepared events of 1968 that swept through Europe, and turn left European politics in the 1970's. How Leninism in practice proved that the political superstructure segment has a certain autonomy and activity in this area may be ahead of the processes unfolding in the basis, so gramscism in the practice of the New Left has demonstrated the effectiveness and practical value of the active IP strategy. Gramscism in a critical theory: left bias In the form in which we have described, gramscism and was integrated into critical theory and its modern representatives of the Ministry of Defense - Robert Cox, Stephen Gill etc. Although in the spirit of postmodern they are even more emphasized the autonomy of the scope of "civil society" and, accordingly, the phenomenon of hegemony, putting an intelligent choice and epistemological strategies above political processes and economic structures, in general, it is the continuity of the Marxist left discourse has been preserved: for them, capitalism is generally better pre-capitalist socio-economic system, although it is clearly worse than the post-capitalist (socialist and communist) model, which should replace it. This explains the structure of the project counter-hegemony in the critical theory of Defense - it is in the context of left-understanding of the historical process. Can be described this way: according to the representatives of the critical theory of hegemony (= bourgeois society, culminating in a hologram of bourgeois consciousness) must replace an underhegemony (types of societies prior to the bourgeois and their inherent forms of collective consciousness - premodern), only to be ruined by the counter-hegemony that, after his victory, set the post-hegemony. So, do Marx and Engels in the "Communist Manifesto" in every key pressed on the fact that the claims of the Communists to the bourgeoisie did not have anything to do with the claims of the bourgeoisie by the feudal anti-bourgeois,

nationalist, Christian socialists, etc. Capitalism is pure evil, absorbs relative (not so obvious and not so explicit) evil older forms of public service, but to defeat the evil, to give him to fully express himself, and only then to eradicate, and not retouched its most odious features, only pulling thus the horizons of revolution and communism. It must be borne in mind when considering the structure of neogramscianist analysis of international relations. This analysis divides all countries into those where the hegemony strengthened obviously (it is the developed capitalist countries with the industrial economy, domination of the bourgeois parties in parliamentary democracies, organized in accordance with the samples of national States, a developed market economy and a liberal legal system), and those where at different historical circumstances that did not happen. The first countries to be called "developed democratic powers", and the second - to refer to the "borderline cases", "problem areas" or even the category of "rogue states (rogue states"). The analysis of hegemony in the countries where it has become stronger, fully integrated into the overall Left (Marxist, neo-Marxist and gramscist) analysis. But the case of countries with "unfinished hegemony" should be considered separately. These countries Gramsci himself relates to the category "Caesarist" (a clear reference to the experience through the eyes of fascist Italy). "Caesarism" could be considered broadly - as any political system, where the bourgeois relations exist in fragments and their full political clearance (both classical bourgeoisdemocratic states) is delayed. In "Caesarism" not important principle of authoritarian rule, but it is the delay of a full comprehensive installation of the capitalist system (in the base and superstructure), of the Western model. The reasons for the delay may be very different: a dictatorial style of government, clan elites, the presence of religious or ethnic groups in power, the cultural characteristics of the society, the historical circumstances of particular economic or geographic location, etc. It is important, first of all, that in such a society, hegemony serves as both an external force (the part of the fully bourgeois states and the high-grade societies) and the internal opposition, one way or another related to external factors.

Neo-gramscianists in the IR claim that "Caesarism" is exactly "under-hegemony", so its strategy is to ensure that the balance between the pressures from within and outside hegemonies, going to make some concessions, but at the same time, making it selectively, aiming at that whatever was to retain power and prevent its capture by the bourgeois political forces, expressing at the political superstructure of the structure of the economic basis of society. Therefore, "Caesarism" doomed to a "transformism" (the Italian transformismo") - a permanent adjustment to the hegemony on the one hand, at a constant quest to delay, postpone or sent by a false path that final, to which it is moving steadily. In this regard, the representatives of critical theory in the MoD consider the "Caesarism" as that sooner or later be overcome by hegemony, as this phenomenon is nothing more than a "historical lag", and not an alternative that is not counter-hegemony as such. It is obvious that to such an "Caesarism" modern representatives of critical theory in the MoD relate most of the Third World, and even the major powers, members of the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). With such features, it becomes clear the limitations of the concept counter-hegemony of the representatives of critical theory in the MoD and frank utopianism of their alternative projects - so that "counter-society" Cox is something inconspicuous and uncertain. They proceed from the troubled project of social and political world order that must come "after liberalism" (I.Wallerstein) and meet the familiar to the left of the communist utopia. A similar version of counter-hegemony is limited by the fact that the hastily puts many political phenomena clearly do not fall into the category of hegemony and gravitate to alternative versions of a world order in the category of "Caesarism" and therefore "underhegemony", depriving them of any kind of interest for the development of an effective counter-hegemonic strategy. But this general analysis of the structure of international relations in the light of the methodology of neo-gramscianism is an extremely important area for the development of MWT. However, in order to overcome the limitations of a critical theory of Defense and the full potential neo-gramscianism should be qualitatively expand this approach, going beyond only the left

(even "leftist") discourse, which puts the entire structure in the area of ideological sectarianism and marginal exotics (where it is in the present). In this issue we will have the invaluable assistance by the ideas of French philosopher Alain de Benoist. "Right wing gramscism" conceptual revision of Alain de Benoist Back in the 1980s, the French representative of the "New Right (Nouvelle Droite"), Alain de Benoist drew attention to Gramsci's ideas in terms of their methodological potential. Just as Gramsci, de Benoist opened fundamental metapolitic as a special area of intellectual activity that prepares (in the form of "passive revolution") further economic and political developments. Successes of the "new left" in France and in Europe in general only confirmed the effectiveness of this approach. Unlike most of the French intellectuals of the second half of the twentieth century, Alain de Benoist was not a supporter of Marxism, which made his position somewhat apart. However, Alain de Benoist built his political philosophy on the radical rejection of liberal and bourgeois values, rejecting capitalism, individualism, modernism, as well as geopolitical Atlanticism and Eurocentrism of the West. Moreover, he contrasted the "Europe" and "the West" as two antagonistic concepts "Europe" for him is a field deployment of special cultural Logos, coming from the Greek and actively interacting with the richness of Celtic, Germanic, Latin, Slavic and other European traditions, "West" - the equivalent of the mechanistic, materialistic, rationalist civilization based on the predominance of technique over all others. "West" Alain de Benoist after O. Spegler understood as a "decline of the West" and, together with Friedrich Nietzsche and Martin Heidegger was convinced of the necessity of overcoming modernity as nihilism and "abandonment of the world being (Seinsverlassenheit). West in this understanding was identical to his liberalism, capitalism and bourgeois society - all that "new right" called to overcome. Not being a materialist, "new right" at the same time agreed with the key meaning given Gramsci and his followers to the sphere of "civil society." So, Alain de Benoist came to the conclusion that the phenomenon named Gramsci, "hegemony" is a set of strategies, attitudes and values, which he

considered an "absolute evil". This led to the proclamation of the principle of "right wing gramscism. "Right wing gramscism" means the recognition of the autonomy of "civil society in the understanding of Gramsci", together with the identification of the phenomenon of hegemony in this area and the choice of its own ideological position on the opposite side of hegemony. Alain de Benoist publishes policy work, "Europe, the Third World - one and the same battle", entirely built on the parallels between the struggle of the peoples of the Third World against the Western bourgeois neo-colonialism and the desire of European nations to be free from alienating dictatorship of the bourgeois market society, morals and practices of traders, Instead of the ethics of a hero (Sombart). Essential "gramshism right" for MWT is that this understanding of "hegemony" can stand up to a point beyond the left and Marxist discourse and reject the bourgeois order as to the basis (the economy) and in the superstructure (politics and civil society) but this is not after hegemony becomes total and global planetary fact instead. Hence it is extremely loaded with meaning nuance in the title of another program of Alain de Benoist "Against Liberalism" as opposed to "After Liberalism" of neomarxist Immanuel Wallerstein: to de Benoist in any case it is impossible to rely on the "after" and should not be allowed to come true for liberalism as a fait accompli, you have to be against liberalism now, today, to fight with him in any position and at any point in the world. The hegemony attacks on a planetary scale, finding their carriers as to the prevailing bourgeois societies and in societies where capitalism has not yet definitively established. Therefore contrhegemony should be thought out sectarian ideological constraints: if we want to create a counter-hegemonic bloc, in its composition must enter all the representatives of antibourgeois, anti-capitalist forces - left, right, or not at all amenable to no classification (Ada Benoit himself consistently emphasized that the division into "left "and" right "is outdated and does not meet the real choice of position, and today is much more important if someone stands for hegemony or against it). "Right wing gramscism" of Alain de Benoist brings us back to the "Communist Manifesto" of Marx / Engels and contrary to their exclusivist and dogmatic call to get "clear from fellow travelers'

calls for a Global Revolutionary Alliance, which brings together all the enemies of capitalism and the hegemony of those who essentially against it. It does not matter what is taken as a positive alternative - is more important in this case, the presence of a common enemy. Otherwise, according to the "new right" (refusing to be precise, calling themselves the "right" - the name given to representatives of the flow by their opponents), hegemony will be able to divide their opponents by artificial signs to oppose one to another in order to successfully cope all individually. Denunciation of Eurocentrism in historical sociology On a completely different side came to the same problem a modern researcher of international relations and one of the main representatives of the historical sociology John Hobson. In his keynote paper "Eurocentric conception of world politics," he analyzes almost all approaches and paradigms in IR terms laid down in the hierarchy constructed by comparing the States and their roles, structures and interests with the Western model of society, taken as a universal standard. D. Hobson concludes that all of the schools in the MoD are built on the implicit Eurocentrism, recognizing the universality of Western European societies, and considering the phases of European history compulsory for all other cultures. Hobson rightly sees this approach as a sign of European racism, gradually and imperceptibly blending of biological theories about the "superiority of the white race" to the concepts of universality of Western cultural values, strategies and technologies, and after that, interests as well. "White Man's Burden" becomes "imperative of modernization and development." In doing so, the local societies and culture that are subject to the "modernization" by default - no one is asking them whether they agree with the fact that Western values, technologies and practices are universal, or are willing to argue something. Only when faced with violent forms of desperate resistance in the form of terrorism and fundamentalism, the West (sometimes) asks, "what for they hate us so much?" But the answer is ready in advance: "It comes from the savagery and the ingratitude of non-European peoples for all

the benefits that Western "civilization" brings with itself. It is important that Hobson clearly shows that racism and Eurocentrism are not unique to the bourgeois theories of Defense, but also to Marxism and including critical theory IR (neogramscianism). Marxists, for all their criticism of bourgeois civilization, convinced that her triumph is inevitable, and this share is common to Western culture euro-ethnocentrism. Hobson shows that Marx himself partly justifies colonial practices in that they lead to the modernization of the colonies, and hence bring nearer the moment of proletarian revolutions. Thus, in a historical perspective, Marxism is an accomplice of capitalist globalization and ally of racist civilizational practices. Decolonization thought by Marxists only as a prelude to the construction of the bourgeois States, which only remains to embark on a full industrialization and head towards the future of the proletarian revolutions. And it's not much different from the neo-liberal theories and transnationalists. John Hobson proposes to begin the creation of a radical alternative - to the development of MO theory, based on noneurocentrist and anti-racist approaches. He agrees with the project "counter-hegemonic bloc", nominated by neogramscianists, but insists on his release from all forms of Eurocentrism, and hence on its qualitative expansion. The project of non-eurocentrist IR theory leads us directly to Miltipolar World Theory at last. Transition to multipolarity Now it is possible to bring together everything told about a counter-hegemony and to place in it a context of the Multipolar World Theory (MWT) which, in fact, is the consecutive not eurocentrist theory of IR rejecting hegemony in its bases and calling for creation of wide counter-hegemonic alliance or the counter-hegemonic pact. Counter-hegemony in MWT is comprehended in a similar way with theories of neo-gramscianist and representatives of the IR critical school. Hegemony is domination of the capital and bourgeois political system of the society, expressed in the intellectual sphere. Differently, hegemony firstly is of all a discourse. Thus among three segments

of the society, allocated Gramsci basis and two components of a superstructure (policy and "civil society") MWT in a consent with the post-modernist and post-positivistic epistemology, predominating considers discourse level, that is the intellectual sphere. For this reason the question of hegemony and counterhegemony seems the central and fundamental MWT for construction and its effective realization in practice. The area of metapolitics is more important both politicians, and economy. It doesn't exclude them, but logically and conceptually precedes to them. Finally, the person deals only with the mind and its projections. Therefore the device or a consciousness reorganization automatically involves change (internal and external) the world. MWT is fixing of the counter-hegemonic concept in a concrete theoretical field. And till a certain moment of MWT strictly follows a gramscizm. But where business reaches clarification of the substantial party of the counter-hegemonic pact, there are essential divergences. The most basic is refusal of the left dogmatism: MWT refuses to consider bourgeois transformations of modern societies on all space of a planet as the universal law. Therefore MWT accepts a gramscism and metapolitics rather in the version "new right" (Alain de Benois), than in the version "new left" (R.Kox). Thus position of Alain de Benois isn't exclusuvist and doesn't exclude Marxism - in that degree in which he is an ally in the general fight against the Capital and hegemony. Therefore, strictly speaking, expression "a gramscism on the right" isn't absolutely exact: it would be more correct to speak about an inclusive gramscism (A counterhegemony understood widely, as all types of opposition of hegemony, that is as generalizing and etymologically strict "counter -") and an exclusive gramscism (A counter-hegemony understood narrowly, only as "post-hegemony"). MWT stands up for an inclusive gramscism. More in details this position of overcoming right and left, and also an exit out of conceptual limits of political ideologies of the Modernist style, is developed in a context of the Fourth Political Theory which is inseparably linked with MWT. J.Hobson's contribution to development of inclusive counterhegemony is extremely important. Its appeal to build the non-

eurocentrist theory of IR precisely coincides with MWT purpose. The international relations have to be comprehended from plural positions. At construction really universal theory representatives of the most different cultures and civilizations, religions and ethnos, societies and communities have to be listened and considered. In each society there are values, the anthropology, the ethics, the standards, the identity, the ideas of space and time, of the general and private. In each society there is, eventually, own "universalism" - at least, own understanding of that is "universal". That the West thinks of "universality", we know, even too. It is time to provide a vote to other mankind. It also is multipolarity in its fundamental measurement: free plurality of societies, people and cultures. But before this plurality will be able to be developed really, it is necessary to define the general rules. And it also is the theory of the International Relations. And such which will assume openness of terms, concepts, theories, concepts, a plurality of actors, complexity and polysemanticity. Not tolerance, but partnership and mutual understanding. MWT in this case is not the ending, but start, a cleaning of basic space for future world order. However the appeal to multipolarity sounds not in empty space. In a discourse about the international relations, in global political, social and economic practice hegemony dominates. We live in the rigid eurocentric world where one superstate (USA) in total with her allies and vassals (NATO country) where the market relations dictate all rules economic the practician where bourgeois political standards undertake as obligatory where equipment and level of material development are considered as the highest criteria where values of individualism, personal comfort, material welfare and "freedoms from" are extolled above all the others imperialistically dominates. In a word, we live in peace the triumphing hegemony stretched the networks in planetary scale and subordinating to all mankind. Therefore to make multipolarity reality, the radical opposition, fight, opposition is necessary. Differently, the counter-hegemonic block (in its inclusive understanding) is necessary. Let's consider, what resources are present at this potential block.

Syntax of hegemony/syntax of counter-hegemony

Hegemony in the conceptual hologram is based on conviction that the present in everything surpasses an antiquity (past), the Modern triumphs over Premodern, and the West in everything surpasses not - the West (The East, the Third world). Structure syntax of hegemony in the most general view has: The West ( The West) = present (Modern) = purpose = benefit = progress = universal values = USA (+ NATO) = capitalism = human rights = market = liberal democracy = right

Vs

Other (the Rest) = backwardness (Premodern) = needs modernization (colonizations/the helps/lessons / external management) = needs a westernization = barbarity (wildness) = local values = a sub-capitalism (still not capitalism) = noncompliance (insufficient observance) human rights = unfair market (State participation, clannishness, group preferences) = sub-democracy (default democracy) = corruption These formulas of hegemony are axiomatic and autoreferential, as some kind of "self fulfilling prophecy". One term locates other of a chain of equivalence and is opposed to any term (symmetric or not) from the second chain. By these simple rules any discourse of hegemony is under construction. It can have visibility of a causality, an exemplariness, the descriptive, analytics, the forecast, historical research, sociological poll, debate, oppositions, etc. But in the structure hegemony is under construction on such skeleton, covering it with million variations and the told stories. If to accept these two parallel chains of equalities, we appear in hegemony and are completely coded by its syntax. Any objection will be is extinguished by the new suggestive passes skipping

through one or other term to come to a required hegemonic tautology. Even the most critical forms of a discourse will slide off sooner or later in this constantly renewable semantic track of synonyms and will be dissolved in it. It is worth recognizing at least one of identifications, further everything is predetermined obviously. Therefore building of counter-hegemony begins with a full denial of both of these chains. Let's construct symmetric syntax of counter-hegemony: West (West) present (Modern) purpose benefit progress universal values USA (+ NATO) capitalism human rights market liberal democracy right vs

Other (Rest) backwardness (Premodern) needs modernization (colonizations/the helps/lessons / external management) needs a westernization barbarity (wildness) local values a subcapitalism (still not capitalism) non-compliance (insufficient observance) human rights the unfair market (State participation, a clannishness, group preferences) subdemocracy (default democracy) corruption If equality badges hypnotically take root into collective consciousness as something the self-evident, developed justification of each badge of an inequality demands the separate text or group of texts. To some extent MWT and parallel to it Fourth Political Theory, eurasianism, "new right" (A. de Benois), non-eurocentric theory of IR (J. Hobson), the traditionalism, a postmodernism, etc. carry out this task, but it is now important to offer this scheme as most the general form of counter-hegemonic syntax. Denial of the substantial statement is substantial already owing to the fact of denial, so, the judgment of inequalities is loaded with meanings and communications. Calling into question chains of identifications of hegemony, we receive a semantic field, free from hegemony and its suggestive "axiomatics". One it

completely gives us a free hand for expansion of a counterhegemonic discourse. In this case we provided these basic rules for a specific goal: for preliminary and most general calculation of those resources on which it is possible to count theoretically at creation of the counter-hegemonic pact.

Global revolutionary elite The counter-hegemonic block is under construction round intellectuals. Therefore, the global revolutionary elite rejecting "the status quo " in its most deep basis has to be its kernel. This global revolutionary elite is formed round syntax of counterhegemony. Trying to comprehend the situation from any point of the modern world, in any country, culture, society, a social class, professional function, etc., - the person in search of deep answers about a society organization in which he lives, will come sooner or later to understanding of basic theses of a hegemonic discourse. Certainly, it is given not to everyone though, across Gramsci, each person is the intellectual to a certain degree. However only the full-fledged intellectual represents the person in full and perfect sense; he is some kind of delegate in parliament of conceiving mankind (homo sapiens) from more his modest representatives (from those who can't or doesn't want to realize completeness of data to the person as to a type of opportunities culminated in opportunity to think, that is to be the intellectual). Such intellectual also means when we speak about hegemony detection. At this moment it becomes before a choice, that is realizes the opportunity to become "the intellectual organic": he can tell hegemonies "yes" and accept its syntax, further working in its structure, and can tell "no". When he speaks "no", he goes on counter-hegemony searches, that is looks for access to global revolutionary elite. This search can stop at the intermediate stage: always there are local structures (traditionalist, fundamentalists, communists, anarchists, ethno-centrists, revolutionaries of different types, etc.) which, realizing a hegemony call, reject it, but do it at local level.

Here we are already at the level of organic intellectuals, but for the present not realizing need of synthesis of the refusal of hegemony in the form of universal planetary strategy. However, entering in real (instead of imagined) fight against hegemony, any revolutionary will find sooner or later its transnational, exterritorial character: for the purposes hegemony always resorts to a combination of internal and external factors, attacking that considers the opponent or an obstacle of the imperial sovereignty (elements of the second chain - Other (the Rest)). Therefore the local resistance to a global challenge at once will reach the natural limits; hegemony can once recede, but it will come again, and it is simple to evade from it anybody won't manage and never. At the time of such understanding the representatives of local counter-hegemony most developed intellectually will feel need of an exit to level of fundamental alternative, that is mastering by counter-hegemonic syntax. And it is already direct way to Global Revolutionary Alliance. Thus objectively the world counterhegemonic elite also will be naturally formed. She also is fated to become a counter-hegemony kernel. Most of all MWT is necessary for it.

Counter-hegemony resources: "revisionists" of a world order and their levels Classical theories of IR, particularly, realism, divide countries into countries, which are satisfied with the real state of affairs and balance of forces in a world order, and countries, which are not satisfied and who would like to change in own favor. The first are called "as supporters of the status quo", the second are called as "revisionists". Those forces in the world, which are entered in hegemony and are satisfied with it regardless of their scale and influence, represent one half (thinking) of mankind, "revisionists" represent the second half. Counter-hegemonic elite considers total of "revisionists" as

the resource naturally. "Revisionists "need MWT whether they understand it or not. The need of MWT can be quite unconscious, but if we accept model of "Caesarism" and to assume that many political units are only and exclusively occupied with processes of "transformism" (transformismo), MWT gives them an additional argument to oppose hegemony pressure. Differently, the counterhegemonic elite (widely understood, more generally described by us, on the right and left side) has a powerful natural resource in the person of "revisionists". In order that this resource will exist, it is not obligatory that leading political elite of the countries - "revisionists" are solidary with counter-hegemony or accepted MWT as the management of creating the foreign policy. It is a right time to remember value of an intellectual discourse in its autonomous condition (on what the neo-gramscianists insist). There is enough of that intellectuals of Global Revolutionary Alliance will realize value and the caesarist functions of modes in a global field of hegemony; "revisionists" work intuitively whereas representatives of the counterhegemonic pact work quite conscious. Their interests coincide. And it does the counter-hegemonic pact by obviously fundamental force: "revisionists" provide to hardware, global revolutionary elite provides software. "Revisionists " in the modern world are a number of the powerful and developed States which owing to various historical circumstances are placed by global hegemony in such conditions where they feel restrained. On the logic , their further development imposed by a global discourse, inevitably will lead them to undesirable consequences to actual political elite, or to further deterioration of position of these states. "Revisionists " are very various: some of them are inclined to a compromise with hegemony, others, on the contrary, try to evade in every possible way from its influence. But there is a field for activity of global revolutionary elite everywhere. The most serious association of the countries - "rrevisionists " is BRICS. Each of these countries is a huge resource, and the management of all club "Second world" is interested objectively in

multipolarity - therefore, nothing prevents to advance in them MWT as the strategic program of foreign policy. Round the countries of "Second world" gravitate the whole constellation of large regional powers (Argentina, Mexico - in Latin America; Turkey, Pakistan - in the Central and Forward Asia; Saudi Arabia, Egypt in the Arab world; Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, South Korea - in the Far East, etc.). Each of these countries also can be carried to "revisionists" and has the impressive list of regional ambitions,which is almost impossible or difficult to satisfy in hegemonies system. These countries have a lot of fears and calls in the field of the safety to which reflection of hegemony doesn't promote. Besides, there is a number of the countries which are in direct opposition of hegemony (Iran, North Korea, Serbia, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, etc.). It is provides to Global Revolutionary Alliance exclusive strategic platforms. On the next under - the state level there is a need of more careful analysis, urged to reveal "revisionists" at political level those political parties and movements, which for these or those ideological reasons are required reject a hegemonic discourse in its. On the next under - the state level there is a need of more careful analysis, urged to reveal "revisionists" at political level those political parties and movements, which for these or those ideological reasons are required reject a hegemonic discourse in its essential element. Such political forces can be right or left, religious or secular, nationalist or cosmopolitan, parliamentary or considerably oppositional, mass or "elitist". All of them can be integrated into strategy of counter-hegemonic elite. Such parties and movements can settle down in a political zone of "revisionists", and in the field of those countries where hegemony strengthens firmly and thoroughly. Under certain circumstances especially in the conditions of crisis or reforms even in such powers certain windows of opportunity for non-conformist forces and them (relative) success and advance open. In a segment of civil society of possibility of counter-hegemony

are wider because here carriers of a hegemonic discourse act directly, without masks. In the field of science, culture, arts, the philosophies carriers of counter-hegemony which owning syntax, are capable to resist effectively to ideological opponents because quantity and weight in this environment has very minor value. One talented and prepared intellectual from counter-hegemony can cost thousands opponents. In the non-political sphere where sciences, culture, art, philosophy settle down, counter-hegemony can use a huge arsenal of means and methods from religious and traditionalist to vanguard and post-modernist. Being guided by correctly understood counter-hegemonic syntax, it won't make work to develop the most various intellectual strategy which are throwing down a challenge to western "axiomatics" of the Modernist style. This model also can be applied not only in not western societies easily, but also in the developed capitalist countries, repeating in a new historical situation successful experiment new "the left wing gramscism" in Europe of the 6070th years of the XX century. Set of under - the state political structures and the boundless zone of "civil society" (in Gramsci's understanding) gives us median level whereas the States ("revisionists") as those can be taken for macro level of expansion of counter-hegemonic practice. And at last, micro level is individuals who also can be counterhegemony carriers under certain conditions , because after fight field for MWT is a person in all of his measurements from personal to social and political. The global should be understood anthropologically. We receive the huge tank of resources which is located at the disposal of potential global revolutionary elite. In that situation when rules are set by hegemony, and "sub-hegemony" or simply "not hegemony" passively resists to it, this resource is neutralized, or involved in infinitesimal degree and in strictly local situations, that isn't consolidated, scattered and is exposed to gradual entropy. In this case for the hegemony it is no more, than a passive obstacle, inertia and the object which is subject to conquest, "domestication" or dismantle (so for construction of the road cut down the wood or fill up bogs). But all of his becomes a counter-hegemony resource when counter-hegemony turns into

force realizing, into the historical subject, into the phenomenon. All of this are transformed to a resource when the global revolutionary elite turned to MWT as to the theoretical base. Before and without it all listed moments are not a resource. Counterhegemony and Russia It is necessary to project the principles of counter-hegemony in MWT context on a situation in Russia. In a context of the neo-gramscianist analysis modern Russia represents classical "caesarism" with all its typical attributes. Hegemony, for its part, places Russia surely in a chain "the Rest" and builds its image with the classical syntax: "authoritarianism" =corruption=need of modernization =do not observes human rights and freedom of the press=the State interferes with business questions, etc. Subjectively Russian management is occupied with processes of "transformismo", constantly balancing between hegemony concessions (participation in the international economic organizations, such as the WTO, privatization, the market, democratization of political system, fine tuning under educational standards of the West, etc.) and aspiration to keep the sovereignty, and at the same time and the power of ruling elite with a support on "patriotic" moods of masses. In the international relations, Putin adheres unambiguously to realism whereas the Government and expert community obviously gravitates to liberalism that creates a doublethink typical for "transformismo" For MWT and counter-hegemonic elite such situation creates the favorable environment for expansion of autonomous activity and represents the natural enclave promoting its development, strengthening and consolidation. Russia unambiguously treats camp of "revisionists" in the international system, having lost the provision of one of two superstates in the 90th years of the XX century and having sharply reduced the sphere of the influence even at the next boundaries. One-polarity of a world order and hegemony strengthening in the last decades (=globalization) brought to Russia exclusively negative results as were under

construction geopolitical, strategically, ideologically, politically and "psychologically" - at her expense. And though preconditions for an active revenge obviously didn't ripen, the general atmosphere and the main objective tendencies help with society to formation of MWT and promote strengthening and crystallization of the Russian segment of global counterhegemonic revolutionary elite. Moreover, Vladimir .Putin's steps in questions of the foreign policy, directed on strengthening of the Russian sovereignty, its intention in construction of the Eurasian Union, his critic of the unipolar world and the American domination, and also incidental mentions of multipolarity as most desirable world order all this expands a field of opportunities for organic creation of the full and well-founded theory of counterhegemony in MWT context.