The language of the Fourth Political Theory
The Fourth Political Theory is an attempt to overcome modernity, starting with overcoming many of the words and concepts that emerged with modernity at the hand of liberalism, communism and nationalism.
Many of the words we use during social and political discussions and analysis are not ideologically neutral, words such as "individual," "class," "race," and "nation."
According to Dugin, if completely out of ideological doctrines, those words lose their meaning or at least a large part of it.
We can not show our attitudes to those words unambiguously, since the content of those words is modelled by context and semantics, and these three elements interact closely with each other.
When we live in a State or a society with a clearly hegemonic ideology, it can be clearly seen how certain words are an indispensable part of certain ideological discourses.
The meaning of words has a close link with ideology, which is transmitted through education in different societies around the world, and is often strongly supported by an ideological State apparatus that is also active. The State gives content to words and language in general, directing a large part of the discourses, and setting the limits and moral nuances of the most important set of concepts in politics and social sciences, as given in different parts of the world.
To give a simple example: if we live in a society in which liberalism has been established in a hegemonic way, the concept of individual, which is the central object of liberalism, the concept of liberal democracy, the concept of market, the Western concept of human rights, etc., start to prevail in language, helping to implant the liberal ideological agenda.
If we live for example in a society where Marxism has been established in a hegemonic way, the concepts of working class, communism and class struggle are imposed in language.
But words that acquire an obviously negative content also begin to impose on language, in the case of Marxism concepts such as the bourgeoisie, fascism, capitalists, etc., and in the case of liberalism "authoritarianism", "oppression", "terrorism", concepts that in addition to acquiring a negative connotation also acquire a specific meaning with which the liberals, communists, fascists, etc.; will clearly have disagreements.
There is disagreement also into the discussion regarding the meaning of words in ideological discourses and social sciences. The way in which a communist sees a fascist or a liberal seems from the point of view of fascists and liberals as a distortion of reality created by the opposing side, and of course, vice versa, since for liberals and fascists it is natural to see communism as an evil of society, seeing themselves as radically different in comparison to their ideological detractors.
For someone convinced of the universality of liberal ideology, communism and fascism are almost equally bad. The liberal who in turn is capitalist does not consider himself being in the same way as the bourgeois seen through Marxism.
Speculation is for that person a way to exercise their economic freedom seen as natural according to their world-view, and the system that such a person advocate is generally considered by him as a society characterized by freedom and openness, where there are opportunities that in other societies do not come to be. Generally, neither the Marxist analyst who bases himself on the analysis of the appropriation of surplus value from Marxist theory, nor the liberal who bases his vision of the world on liberal universalist perspectives, neither the fascist who sees his model of society as the only possible alternative in the face of communism or liberalism, can manage to convince each other of something. According to Dugin, ideologies are in this respect quite similar to religion; therefore, within the framework of the strong ideological polarization that existed in Germany before, during, and after Nazism; the conservative ideologue Carl Schmitt used the expression "political theology". Everyone who defends their position believes it sacred based on personal values and ideals, and the criticism of those values and ideals, or the advance of different ones usually does not have much effect.
As a result of the above, before using one or another term, it is necessary to know what ideology this term is used in, even if the ideology or term is not completely defined.
Someone could simply say that science must take a completely neutral position. That is very difficult or even impossible. In this case, science should become "an ideology of truth", from which in comparison all other ideologies would be distorted forms that start from the relativity with which human subjects know reality. But it is clear that creating such a thing is impossible and even the pretension to do so is insane.
As Dugin mentions, within the framework of religion there are often teachings that start from syncretism, because according to different doctrines, "absolute truth" and the religions that were based on these "absolute truths" are only relative manifestations of different concepts that do not have absolute potential.
On the basis of this, one can intuit easily that these religions, as well as the ideologies that start from intellectual processes such as these, can not be adopted by the entire world, and are necessarily limited to the belief of specific groups, which are considered by the rest as having wrong thinking.
However, according to Dugin, we can not forget that which differentiate science from the main current ideologies:
1. Science gives its position with respect to the ideological paradigms to be taken into account, since in fact people who do not have a complex academic education, often do not even suspect that what they consider their "personal opinion" does not arise totally as a direct fruit of them, existing discourse mechanisms of each ideology that are hidden for those people.
2. Science makes an analysis of ideological discourses, uses techniques of logic such as the laws of Aristotle and the principle of sufficient reason of Leibniz, according to which "every object must have a sufficient reason to explain it."
3. Science can elaborate a matrix to compare the similarities between different ideologies, establishing the similarities and differences between separate discourses and the elements that make them up.
In that way, when considering any concept, there are two options when proceeding: to interpret it from the position of the relative truths of one ideology or another, and for doing that we will be unable to deepen in its elementary bases and we will be unable to make comparison with other interpretations of the same concept, or on the other hand pay attention to the scientific method, which does not necessarily prevent us from attaching ourselves to relative truths that start from different ideologies, but at least it forces us to reasoning according to the scientific approach.
The concept called as "individual" is not ideologically neutral, since from there the liberal doctrine is created, where the individual becomes its main object and the aim is to atomize society as much as possible, with the individual as its basis.
The Fourth Political Theory rejects that the individual being becomes the main object of its theory, because it considers that the person and his society must be closely linked as a body, and in fact they always are, only that the link can be more or less stronger, varying from each person.
Dugin presents an emblematic example of the lack of neutrality in the discourse of social sciences, in this case the use of a term frequently being present in those sciences, the concept of "class", to then emphasize in the least neutral concept of all, that is the concept of "middle class".
The concept of "middle class" is very important for the ideology of capitalist liberalism in its different variants, ranging from those located more to the right wing to those located more to the left (the most "social" versions). Although this concept appeared after the Marxist theory, which is centred in antagonistic class struggle, even the meaning of the term "middle class" has a much longer history, and it originates from ideological elements of the bourgeois revolutions against the Ancient Regime.
As for the concept of "class" in general, that is clearly a concept of social organization that arises with modernity. The political and social systems of the past were based on castes and estates. The castes originated on the basis of the belief that the nature of different people differs in the sense that there are divine souls and earthly souls, or even savage and malefic ones. The reason that castes are a system with such low social mobility is the belief that people can not change the shape of their soul during the course of their life.
It is in the caste system that concepts such as "the masses" have their origin given that society was seen as something divided between people of a divine nature and people of earthly or malefic nature, and based on this conception, the former should be above the others.
Over time, in many places the doctrine that gave rise to the castes was replaced by a doctrine that allowed greater social mobility based on the system of estates. While this doctrine also proposes that there are people superior and inferior in their nature, this does not mean that the birth of a person in a particular place is the only factor to be taken into account to determine the position of a person in the social hierarchy or its amount of heritage, since in estates the accomplishment of different feats is considered as a demonstration of spiritual qualities superior to those of the majority.
The bourgeois revolutions that took place in Europe demanded the replacement of many of the privileges of the clergy, the military aristocracy, and the nobility, and often involved the physical elimination of the members of those sectors. But the bearers of the liberal bourgeois doctrine were not the peasants, who were connected to the traditional society, but more mobile citizens, that is, the bourgeoisie, who since modernity placed themselves as an ideal of how a person should be in the capitalist State.
The bourgeois revolutions partially or totally abolished the power of the Church and the aristocrats, and the result of this is the model for the making of society based on capitalism and liberal concepts. To this end, the distinctions that gave rise to the estates are replaced, except for those that are not spiritual, that is, material distinctions, so that the notion of class emerges as an indicator of inequality.
In sociology, which arises from the bourgeoisie, the basic thinking of liberalism regarding the bourgeoisie being always at the top, is manifested in how the stratification model is being made, since in the upper class there is always the high bourgeoisie. In modern sociology, society is divided into a higher class, a middle class and a lower class, division to which it is sometimes added the completely marginal people.
Ironically, classes and their importance in capitalist society were not perceived as clearly by liberal theorists as by Marx.
In Marxism the fact that capitalist society is divided into classes is presented as one of the main ideas of this school, and that these classes are in struggle, until according to Marxists, capitalism is completely replaced by communism, which supposes the disappearance of what from Marxism thought is called as the contradictions of capitalism, and therefore the disappearance of the material inequality being a characteristic of that.
According to Marx, in a class society there are always rich and poor, and the rich always get richer, and the poor get poorer. From Marx's position, there can only be two classes: the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
All Marxism is based on the belief that the struggle between these two antagonistic classes is the motor force of history since the beginning of the capitalist system, and the difference between these two classes can not be relative but absolute from a Marxist perspective, since each of these classes represents a different world.
In capitalism, according to Marx, Engels and later Marxist thinkers, the proletariat must acquire self-consciousness, to organize itself and put an end to the capitalist system, and to create communism in what according to Marx are the two stages of the communist system, whose first phase was called by other thinkers as socialism, and after all the remnants of capitalist society have disappeared, the communist society will enter its second stage, the stage called by subsequent thinkers as "communist stage", although Marx in his writings prefers to use only the terms of a "first" and "second" stages of communism.
From a totally Marxist perspective, a "middle class" can not exist, since everything that exists between the high bourgeois and
proletarians, such as the petty bourgeoisie or the prosperous peasantry, is essentially part of the bourgeoisie, or part of the proletariat, or a class that one can clearly define as dominant or dominated.
That is why from a purely Marxist perspective, the "middle class" is something that does not exist, and through Marxism it even can be stated that this concept is an ideological tool of capitalism to promise the proletariat a future integration in the capitalist class, which according to Marx becomes impossible due to the appropriation of surplus value by the capitalists.
According to Dugin, Marxists and liberal thinkers have in common the fact that they admit that a transition has taken place from a society based primarily on estates, where the consideration of spiritual as well as material differences was established, to create an order where now only material inequalities are taken into account. Also, Marxists and liberals agree that a class society, that is to say a society based only on material inequalities, is "more progressive" than a society based on estates. But it is clear that liberal thought advocate that material inequality is justified, but not the communist struggle, while in Marxism thought it is the other way around.
For liberals, something like "the end of history" can only start with the triumph of the capitalist system and liberalism, and the total consolidation of the "middle class", while for Marxists, something like that only starts when the society of the proletarian class destroys capitalist society completely by establishing communism. What characterizes specifically the way of perceiving class in liberalism is the conviction that in a capitalist society, where liberal principles have been successfully established, there is only one class, and therefore the differences that may exist within that single class are relative and not as conditioning as conditional. While for Marx there are always two antagonistic classes, for liberals like Adam Smith there is only one class, the bourgeois class. The poorer sectors of capitalist society are considered from this perspective as "incomplete bourgeois". The richest are the most bourgeois of all, and justifying this approach is based on the premise that workers can always aspire to one day become owners.
For example, a worker is hired by an owner, and after working as an assistant, he learns what is necessary to be an owner as well. After some time he borrows credit and opens his business, and eventually hires an assistant for himself, which from the liberal narrative leads to a cycle.
In this model, we see that the whole society is a middle class, since it is not considered that anyone is so low to be classified as "low class", nor is it so different as to be considered "upper class", since there are no more estates based on the consideration of spiritual differences and at the same time it is considered that the owner also runs economic risks that can lead to bankruptcy and make him descend within that middle class.
In the perspective of liberalism, the working class only represents those who can one day become owners, or complete bourgeois. Capitalism is based on the belief that the growth in the wealth of all members that make up society is constant, and therefore, according to the liberal perspective, all humanity can become "full bourgeois."
However, as Dugin mentions, it is necessary to show that within liberal ideology there are two different approaches with respect to the middle class. The first approach is that of the liberals who are further to the left in the political spectrum, the so-called "social- liberals", who insist that the high bourgeoisie should share a part of its profits with members of the middle and lower sectors of the bourgeoisie, that is, those that are denominated from the modern sociological discourse as "the middle class" and the "lower class", since this according to the "social-liberals" leads to a more stable system and to acceleration of economic growth for the whole society.
The second approach is characteristic of the more right-wing liberals, who reject the fact that the high bourgeoisie is hindered by projects aimed at distributing part of their profits among other sectors, and to justify that approach it is stated that doing the opposite contradicts the liberal ideology and hinders the economic functioning of the capitalist system, since it is the high bourgeoisie that stimulates the growth of other sectors of society, for example the middle bourgeoisie, which in turn stimulates the growth of the petite bourgeoisie.
For that reason, the concept of the middle class is for the "social- liberals" an ideological slogan used when advocating the expansion of the "middle class" so that all become "complete bourgeois" through interventions in the capitalist system, while for the other liberals the growth of the middle class arises due to the natural development of the capitalist system, and the middle class does not require special attention to be raised.
Finally, we must consider the perspective regarding the middle class according to the third political theory of modernity, which comes from nationalism and within which is for example fascism. Like liberalism, nationalism is a bourgeois ideology, but unlike liberalism, it insists that the goal of bourgeois society should not be all of humanity, but the People who belong to a specific Nation-State, and for that the Nation is seen as the maximum unit that according to the third political theory allows the unity of the People who compose it.
The market is allowed to be open but only within national boundaries, and this is in order to protect national interests, which legitimize protectionist economic mechanisms.
From the third political theory the middle class is seen first of all as the middle class of a given nationality within the limits of a State. Nationalism, like liberalism, accepts the bourgeois as a standard figure, but places more emphasis on its appearance as a citizen and, above all, as a citizen of a given National State.
Then, according to Dugin, for the third political theory the Nation becomes a synonym of bourgeois society, with the State as an indispensable element without which that bourgeois society could not exist. The Nation is seen as a community composed of the middle class, and the aim of nationalism is to integrate the lower segments in the Nation, and therefore in the middle class, for which the nationalists even use the help of State measures.
That’s why nationalism has some features that also belong to the completely statist economic systems that have been called socialist or communist, but in this case the ideological goal instead of being to put an end to the capitalist class is seen as pushing the economically weak sectors at the level that should be reached by the middle class, which is seen as a necessary task for national integration, and not as a necessary task for equality and material justice by themselves.
This resembles, for example, that which happens within the "social-liberals” regarding the fact that economic measures designed to push economically weak sectors are considered necessary for the stability of capitalism, but the difference is that nationalists do not do so for the purposes of equality and justice by themselves, but for the strengthening of what is considered a National community with an historical mission.
Nationalism has a negative relationship with some or all national minorities, especially with those who are immigrants, since from the perspective of nationalists, these elements alter the homogeneity of the nation, and therefore the homogeneity of the middle class, or they are anyway conspiring against the Nation, as for example all Jews and Slavs according to the Nazi doctrine, who are, as in the case of Jews or foreign sectors of all kinds, blamed for hoarding too much material wealth due to their economic activity.
Meanwhile, other minority sectors are blamed for increasing the number of people whose integration is hampered by the differences they have with those who make up a particular nationality that is the basis of a specific State.
Dugin rejects the class being the object of the Fourth Political Theory because the classes do not always manage to establish themselves completely, and because the concept of "class" does not manage to fully explain the social reality and therefore does not manage to solve its problems.
Dugin mentions that the transition from caste to estates, and from estates to classes is not a universal rule. This process may occur as it did in modern Western Europe, or it may not occur or occur only partially, as it is happening up to the present in the non-Western societies. Therefore, the concept of class has limitations in its applicability for the analysis of societies.
Class and classes can be identified in modern Western European societies, but if they really replace the criteria for establishing inequalities that are based on spiritual grounds and human nature instead of material position, that is not obvious at all even in Western societies, where we see that certain inequalities exist because the nature of certain people or in some cases the nature of their spirituality are considered superior to those of the rest.
In addition to the concept of individual and that of classes, there are other emblematic concepts that are not ideologically neutral.
It is very important to clarify that I reject, like Dugin, the Western variant of the term called "race", since it is a purely biological term and therefore is the result of Western materialism, being used extensively by proponents of the third political theory such as Hitler, but also by members of the promoter elites of liberalism, in order to legitimize colonial efforts or segregation.
This term is not neutral since it takes only biological considerations and leaves aside considerations about the culture and spirit of each People.
Furthermore, it can not be used correctly in anthropology, since groups with many biological variations, such as sub-Saharan peoples, are grouped within the same race.
But those who try to tear down the concept of "race” without replacing it by something, leaving in their place a void that they intend to fill with concepts such as "ethnicity", or "phenotype", and not a concept like "spiritual race", are not ideologically neutral when making such thing, by promoting an egalitarianism rooted in liberalism, which does not allow individuals and the People to be considered different, ignoring that taking into account variety is a key both for science and for politics, and that human beings are not equal.
That is why instead of using the term "race" or instead of leaving a vacuum, the term "spiritual race" should be used. With this term I classify human groups that differ by spiritual characteristics and not mere material ones. A form of classification based on this is presented in the second half of the book, as a way for taking into account not only people’s biological qualities, but also spiritual qualities that differentiate them from each other and which originate since birth.
The term spiritual race, instead of being a materialistic concept, like the concept of "race" in Nazism and in the eugenicists of the USA, is a concept also related to spirituality, since undoubtedly, the different individuals besides biological differences also have spiritual and cultural differences that make them adopt forms of life, world-views, and even ways of looking at themselves that give rise to a very diverse spiritual whole, and when I refer to the spiritual I mean those factors that determine people’s willingness to interact with what surrounds them, and this will must be understood from the point raised by Nietzsche, that’s to say a will to power that people use to outdo themselves.
The concept of "Nation" is also not ideologically neutral and is not used correctly, because within a territory or a specific State, for
example the current territory of Russia, or the territories that in the past were part of the Russian Empire and of the Soviet Union, several nationalities or ethnicities live, while collaboration between these different nationalities is important, since a single ethnic group can not face alone the globalization of liberalism, the other universalisms, or environmental problems.
In contrast to the previous political theories, the Fourth Political Theory has neither the concept of the individual, nor class, nor the Nation or the western variant of the concept of race as the central object of its theory, since it is based on the imperative of overcoming modernity and therefore liberalism, communism, and nationalism which gave rise to fascism and national-socialism.
The object of the Fourth Political Theory in its complex version is Dasein, a concept that is the basis of Martin Heidegger's philosophy.
Dasein is human existence, where its organic, cultural, linguistic and spiritual history is present and closely linked.
According to Dugin, the object of this theory in its simple version is the Russian concept "narod", which can be translated as "the People", but not in the sense of the People as "mass" or "masses", that is, not as a group of individuals dominated by their "masters". We can say that the Russian concept "narod" is for example the living presence of the Russians in a place with their specific qualities. Within the narod concept are included not only the Russians considered as ethnically Russian, but also other peoples historically and culturally linked to the Great Russia.
The People and not the individual (as in liberalism) nor two antagonistic classes (as in Marxism), nor the State, the Nation or the race (as in the third political theory), is the central concept of the Fourth Political Theory, so that the ideological concepts of modernity are overcome.
According to Dugin, in the Fourth Political Theory there is no materialism, economism, neither recognition of the inevitability and universality of bourgeois revolutions, nor linear time, Western civilization as a standard, secularism, and also (in the form that are conceptualized in the West) neither human rights, civil society, liberal democracy, economic liberalism, or any other axiom of modernity.
The Fourth Political Theory rejects capitalism, individualism and the "cult of money" in liberalism, it also rejects materialism, atheism, progressivism, and the theory of class struggle of communism, while rejecting the fascist idea regarding the necessity of a predominance of certain nations and biological races over other groups.
According to Dugin, both liberalism and communism and the third political theory are totalitarian, since in communism, it is claimed the predominance of the whole (society and the working class) over the individual, and the third political theory also proclaims the superiority of the whole, in this case of the State, biological race and ethnicity over the individual, and both in communism and in fascism this predominance is sought to be achieved through coercive and propagandistic means.
Regarding liberalism, this ideology is also totalitarian because it proclaims the individual as the most important subject-matter and places it above society, while the concept of the individual is used as a way to measure the character of all political, economic and cultural thoughts, therefore liberalism tries to impose an element on society, in this case the individual, using coercive measures that start in the State apparatus, that is, the State forces people to respect the liberal guidelines regarding the individual, and it uses propaganda, as well as the coercive pressure on the part of the people governed and influenced by the propaganda of liberalism over those who oppose this doctrine, while these influenced people generate their own liberal propaganda.
The Fourth Political Theory is opposed to totalitarianism because this political theory does not propose the community being upon the individual or the individual being upon society.
From the Fourth Political Theory, people should neither be considered atomized individuals or just a sum in the whole, since a People integrates both the individual and collective reality of human societies, and hence the importance of the concept of "People” as the central subject of the Fourth Political Theory in its more simple version, being Dasein in its complex version, that is the human existence, where organic, cultural, linguistic and spiritual history is present and closely related between.
However, according to Dugin, the Fourth Political Theory takes the ideal of liberalism regarding the value of freedom, although in this case not individualistic freedom but the freedom of the community.
Dugin mentions that the Fourth Political Theory takes from Marxism the ideals of justice and equality understood as ethical ideals, and the harmonious development of human coexistence based on the end of human alienation.
Of nationalism, the Fourth Political Theory takes the idea regarding the value of the ethnic group, identity, religion, spirituality, family and State, although it does not pretends that some Nation or biological group predominates over others, but a harmonious coexistence between them, which can occur within the framework of the State and its People and in relation to the peoples which are outside political borders.
While accepting components of the three previous political theories, the Fourth Political Theory proposes alternatives rejected simultaneously by liberalism, communism and nationalism, and proposes a theory based on the essential knowledge of "narod", or in a more complex version, the fundamental knowledge of "Dasein", that is, human existence, where its cultural, linguistic, biological and spiritual history is present and closely linked to each other.
In his works, Dugin also criticizes the view being hold in the West regarding the process named as time, seen in the West as something linear and non-cyclical, and that only leads to a single direction, that is, the direction of modernity, the direction of the West’s new world order, an order that is totalitarian in its very essence, despicable and promoter of the superfluous and banal, being destroyer of the People’s essence, that’s to say their soul.
In fact, what we see in time and space are cyclical processes that lead to different directions, with each region having its own history and its own direction, even though the West wants to erase all those history and paths, leaving only those of the West, and therefore imposing a single world model for civilization, i.e West’s liberalism transmuted into globalist and destructive postliberalism.
But I intend to radicalize Dugin's thought in this sense, assuming that we should not consider giving its definite start and ending to things, considering that time, at least understood as something with existence of its own, in fact does not exist, and it is in the mania to set a starting and ending point to everything that people in the West forget the explanation of their origin, an explanation based on cycles, cycles that necessarily leave an echo from the development of universe as a whole to the development seen in that microcosm called mankind.
Human beings are used to giving everything its starting and ending point, and especially from the West a linear conception of time has been made which its marked beginning and ending, without seeing the Eternal through its cycles of constant return. People wonder where God or his creation comes from, as if both are in need of a beginning or end, having neither beginning nor end of days, since past, present and future are a simultaneous reality, and time does not exist, that being the way of explaining existence itself, by not attributing the origin and end indicated by the illusion of time.
Time does not have an existence by itself, it does not exist as something tangible, it is only the result of the conjunction between the seen and unseen world that gives it origin, a conjunction that allows the seen world to be created and manifested in our consciousness as time, since our consciousness and identity exist on the basis of starting and endings points that in fact are not real. In order to understand this, we should observe the fourth aggregation state of matter, called plasma, which does not exist independently. Its particles are electrically charged and have no electromagnetic equilibrium, but not by the action of matter, but by what underlies it.
In the same way, it has been theorized that one of the fundamental forces in nature, called the weak nuclear force, does not have an existence independent of electromagnetism, this being an example of how there are a seemingly set of independences which in fact are illusory.
So far I have mentioned elements of reality that exist as part of groups of four aspects, time is called as the fourth dimension by the Einsteinian theory, plasma is the fourth state of matter, and there are 4 fundamental forces in nature.
By means of the Fibonacci sequence it is observed how "4" is absent in nature, it is always an illusion, with the sole exception of the 4 cardinal points.
The origin of these points is the convergence between infinity and end, between seen and unseen world: therefore "4" is the connection between the seen and unseen world, between infinite and end, but it is neither the infinite nor the end, it is only that which connects both aspects, being the aspects of the unseen world always infinite, in the creative chaos and the infinitely small, or in the creative order and the infinitely large.
This does not mean that "4" is something to be regarded as exclusively detrimental, since illusion generates in human beings both positive and negative effects. Human belief, although it uses illusion, remains the origin and engine of human societies, and within this framework, we should distinguish positive from negative time, for using the illusion of time as something positive, which is not possible within the Western conception of time and within the Gregorian calendar.
Another essential aspect of Dugin's theoretical approach is the call for a multipolar world where Eurasianism is destined to clash with Atlanticism, as an inevitable consequence of two different modes of culture, Eurasianism representing the living traditionalism of Dasein, and Atlanticism representing its antithesis, modernity and its consequence, post-modernity. Both exist alongside two different subsistence modes, since Atlanticism has as its domain the control of trade through maritime routes and waterways (thalassocracy), and Eurasianism has the domain over large land masses (tellurocracy).
A struggle becomes inevitable because these two modes of subsistence collide as large masses of land also need maritime routes and waterways, and these routes and waterways need large masses of land provided with natural and human resources.