The final stage of the development of capitalism or What will be the new world order


Classical Marxism presupposes a gradual change of social formations, the crown of which should be communism. But this is theory, but practice so far demonstrates otherwise: the world does not smell of communism, and even those countries that at one time embarked on the path of building it, the USSR and China, in fact, returned to capitalism.


Regarding Russia, we, its citizens, do not need to say anything, but in the Celestial Empire, despite the sole rule of the CPC, there is no trace of public ownership of the means of production - a key feature of socialism as the initial stage of communism. In fact, "socialism with Chinese characteristics" is economyoperating on a market basis, simply with a serious presence of the state in many areas.

All roads lead from Washington


However, we are not talking about the future of communism. And about the future of the world. And here you will have to talk more about capitalism, since it is he who is now having a decisive role in the processes taking place on the surface of the globe.

Let's start with Biden's recent election victory in the United States, a country that is a showcase of capitalism. Until recently, it seemed that Trump and his supporters were a real and strong alternative to the supporters of globalization from the Democratic Party, and the time is not far off when globalism itself will finally fall under the blows of patriots - both in America and in other countries of the "liberal bloc". Trump himself said from the UN rostrum that "the future belongs to patriots, not globalists."

But after the notorious "storming" of the Capitol, this confidence collapsed like a house of cards. Of course, the 70 million people who voted for Trump have not gone anywhere, and over time they will recover from the blows inflicted on him and will try to resist attempts to establish a liberal diktat with the legalization of migrants, the abolition of the right to freely carry weapons, etc. But now they do not have the same "real rioters" as Trump was.

The Trumpists will unambiguously make attempts to nominate their leaders, but the Democrats, who nevertheless dumped the "impossible Donald", will do everything to prevent this. Their opportunities, as we have already seen, are rather big, persistence in achieving goals is also as much as necessary, and now they have experience, from which they have already drawn the necessary conclusions for themselves. Anyone they suspect of wanting to be the next Trump is in hell. And if the 45th president himself dares to take revenge! ..

However, what will happen next in the States, time will tell. It is important for us to note the fact that the adherents of the global world order turned out to be much stronger than it seemed until the last moment. Now let's move on.

Two ideological camps in the USA


Despite the fact that the sympathies of many Russians are on Trump's side, since his patriotism is closer to us than the position of Biden's supporters and comrades, but let's be frank: there were no prospects for our countries to start cooperating on a mutually beneficial basis, even if would the Trumpists become the dominant political strength in the United States for decades to come. And the actions of the 45th President (withdrawal from the INF Treaty, Don, unwillingness to extend START-3) are a clear evidence of this.

Nevertheless, if you look at the issue in terms of the medium and long term, Trump is clearly a lesser evil than the forces that have won in America now. For one simple reason: Trump's goal was to return to the principles of "traditional capitalism" as we have known it for the last 70 years, and to ensure the prosperity and power of his state, to consolidate its economic, military-political and technological leadership in the world for the maximum possible period, in ideally - forever. The same "Make America great again".

All this, in general, is in the interests of the military-industrial complex, the oil industry and other conditional "production workers" from among the American business elite, whose enterprises are located in the country, and who sponsored the election of Trump in exchange for lobbying their own interests. But the Democrats are traditionally backed by IT corporations (almost the first to transfer production, first to China, and now to Vietnam and beyond, where labor is cheaper), as well as Wall Street, whose interests are with the real sector of America and the welfare of its inhabitants intersect only sporadically. In other words, national and transnational capital are opposed to each other here.

"Brave New World" in a globalist way


This division is to a certain extent arbitrary, but our task is to outline the contours, and not to sort out all the details on the shelves. This is not important - it is important what goals the sponsors of the Democrats pursue.

And they have incomparably greater ambitions than the Trumpists. At the same time, the United States for them is not an end in itself, but only an instrument for promoting their own interests, which extend to the whole world. Quite in the spirit of Trotsky with his "brushwood for the world revolution." It is no coincidence that among the Democrats there are a dozen of those who in their youth were very fond of the ideas of Leiba Bronstein, the same Hillary Clinton.

It was Trotsky's principles, albeit in a strongly "modernized" form, that formed the basis of their ideology, which they spread throughout the world: this is the notorious multiculturalism, and the construction of a "new morality" with a gender "revolution" and other delights, and environmental protection in the spirit of Greta Thunberg, and the decline in the world's population and much, much more. This list ends with a desire to control not just behavior, but a person's way of thinking with the help of electronic of technologies... At the same time, the levers of control, according to the architects of the new world order, should not be in the hands of the state.

As a matter of fact, here we come to the main goal of the globalists, who promote the above-mentioned "values" by no means because they really share them. And they understand perfectly well that if the "ideology" they support triumphs in the whole world, then chaos will reign on earth. Moreover, it is precisely this chaos that they seek. But why?

Let us venture to suggest that the ultimate goal of these gentlemen is the elimination of the state as a capable social force. Since only this element of the life of human society prevents the current transnational corporations from receiving as much profit and having as much power as they want. And their appetites are truly unlimited. And they will continue to promote the global liberal project by hook or by crook.

Can you imagine what our planet will turn into if they get their way? It is then that the notorious "end of history" will come, and it will not be at all what Fukuyama predicted. This will be a world in which capitalism will reach its final stage of development, a world of global and total slavery, before which Orwell's dystopias will seem like mere children's fairy tales.

"Eh, no, there is no need to rush ..."


Nevertheless, this phrase of Comrade Saakhov is quite applicable in our case. Since, despite the clearly declared intentions of the globalists and clearly formulated tasks, the solution of which they are working out with might and main in practice, not everything is so simple. After all, many people both in the world and in the Western countries themselves do not like what is happening. To begin with, it is too early to write off Trump's supporters in America itself, although they are demoralized by recent failures, and the strategic initiative is clearly on the side of their enemies.

And the world itself, as you know, consists not only of the United States and its satellites. The real threat, and, moreover, not very weak, for the plans of the "neo-capitalists", let's call them so, are China and Russia. And not only economically (this should be attributed to China to a greater extent) and politico-military (here we are, perhaps, still stronger than Beijing), but also mentally, if you like. Because both we and our current (apparently temporary) allies from the Celestial Empire have one thing in common: the primacy of public interests over private interests and the desire to build a strong state. Is this the reason why the Biden administration is in solidarity with Trump in identifying the main threats to the United States?

However, both we and the Chinese have a rather large set of our own problems, which globalists will certainly play on in the future. However, this still does not guarantee them victory. At least, judging by their behavior, China has a quite intelligible program of action aimed both at overcoming its weaknesses and at countering external threats. Does Russia have it? We will try to talk about this next time.
Ad
We are open to cooperation with authors in the news and analytical departments. A prerequisite is the ability to quickly analyze the text and check the facts, to write concisely and interestingly on political and economic topics. We offer flexible working hours and regular payments. Please send your responses with examples of work to [email protected]
47 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Miffer Offline Miffer
    Miffer (Sam Miffers) 25 January 2021 08: 30
    -1
    Since we also ... have a feature: the primacy of public interests over private

    Especially well this "primacy" was felt by people aged 50+ when pushing through an increase in the retirement age, bashfully called "pension reform."
  2. Cyril Offline Cyril
    Cyril (Kirill) 25 January 2021 09: 40
    0
    Since both we and our current (apparently temporary) allies from the Middle Kingdom have one thing in common: the primacy of public interests over private interests and the desire to build a strong state.

    It depends on what is the point of investing in the highlighted concept.

    In the understanding of the Bolsheviks and modern jingoistic patriots, a "strong state" is one that tightly controls society and through this control ensures stability for itself.

    In the understanding of the same Americans or Europeans, a "strong state" is one that meets the needs of its citizens and enables them to realize themselves. Such a state does not need to tightly control its society in order to ensure its stability. Society itself will hold on to such a state.

    And historical practice shows that the second option wins.
    1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
      ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 25 January 2021 16: 28
      0
      Quote: Cyril
      historical practice shows that the second option wins

      Totally agree with you. But in order to ensure the possibility of development for each of its citizens, the state must establish clear rules of the game FOR ALL its participants and consistently suppress attempts to circumvent these rules. This, in my understanding, is a strong state. In short.
      1. Cyril Offline Cyril
        Cyril (Kirill) 25 January 2021 16: 30
        0
        the state should establish clear rules of the game FOR ALL its participants and consistently suppress attempts to bypass these rules.

        Certainly. And there are problems with this in Russia.
        1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
          ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 25 January 2021 17: 17
          0
          What the next publication will be about.
  3. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
    Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 25 January 2021 10: 18
    0
    Classical Marxism assumes a gradual change in social formations

    Not gradual, but consistent - all social formations express a progressive ascent from the lowest stages of development to the highest.
    If external factors do not interfere in the life of the country, then in its development it must go through all the stages, without jumping over or missing a single formation.

    practice so far demonstrates otherwise: the world does not smell of communism, and even those countries that at one time embarked on the path of building it, the USSR and China, in fact, returned to capitalism

    Lying, knowingly or unknowingly, the fundamental signs of Socialism.

    in the Celestial Empire, despite the sole rule of the CPC, there is not even a trace of public ownership of the means of production - a key feature of socialism as the initial stage of communism

    He's lying! The type of formation is determined by its foundation - the economy, the central element of which is production relations, and in them - property relations.
    Socialism, as a transitional stage, has signs of two different social systems and property relations - capitalist and public property.
    This is the essence of the Leninist New Economic Policy, Deng Xiaoping's reforms, the policy of the Communist Party of China and V.V. Putin's reforms, so as not to break the capitalist mode of production to the core, to take all its main and strategically important sectors under state and party control through the system of state regulation of purchase -sales, taxation, lending and other enforcement and control measures.

    it is not about the future of communism. And about the future of the world

    The People's Republic of China completed the XNUMXth Five-Year Plan with the creation of a powerful economy and a middle-income society.
    The next goal of the Chinese Communist Party is to build a socialist state by 2050.
    The People's Republic of China, under the leadership of the Communist Party, is on an unbeaten path and mistakes are possible.
    Imperialism is powerful and aggressive, it is pursued by one crisis after another, but when it seems to be dying out, it rises and moves to another, higher level of development.
    One thing is clear - the dynamics of the stratification of the world, when 50 years ago, 10% of the population owned 90% of all wealth, and today only 1% owns 99%, it cannot continue indefinitely, but what it will result in - we'll wait and see.
    1. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
      Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 25 January 2021 10: 33
      +1
      And yet, he does not understand what state capitalism is. A classic example of state capitalism is the United States, when it is not the state that controls the capitalists, but the capitalists, one or another of their groups, controls the state.
      1. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
        Alexzn (Alexander) 25 January 2021 14: 46
        +1
        Take an interest in the meaning of the definition STATE CAPITALISM. The United States is the least so unlike Russia and China.
        1. Jacques sekavar Offline Jacques sekavar
          Jacques sekavar (Jacques Sekavar) 25 January 2021 18: 34
          +1
          1. The state is the political organization of the ruling class.
          2. The US Federal Reserve is a closed joint stock company, each joint stock bank of which has its own owners.
          3. According to experts, the US Federal Reserve will print banknotes, and to whom and under what conditions it will be given, the government, for example, will be engaged in the BlackRock investment campaign, which has its own shareholders and owners.
          4. He who pays calls the tune. The Fed or BlackRock is not the essence, but the essence is that it is not the state that manages big capital as in the PRC or the Russian Federation, but the big capital of the United States through its structures controls the state and not vice versa.
    2. The comment was deleted.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  4. Jarilo Offline Jarilo
    Jarilo (Sergei) 25 January 2021 11: 47
    +1
    I was taught at the technical school and at the university that the market is when the quality rises, and the prices go down, but here it is the other way around - the prices go up and the quality goes down. How does is called? In my opinion, this is tough exploitation, pumping out all possible resources (people are new oil). The people are dying out at a record pace, but there is no war.
  5. After capitalism according to Lenin, there will be imperialism - the highest and last stage of capitalism. Well, then there will be PARAGRAPH.
  6. Ivan Semenov Offline Ivan Semenov
    Ivan Semenov (Ivan Semenov) 25 January 2021 14: 44
    +2
    And I heard something else in the article. The globalists' tactics are to gradually "bite off" pieces of the world. Not by washing, but by skating, to increase their influence, depriving the country of its sovereignty (which we observe). To make life difficult for the population in countries with a traditional orientation. When the potential of the globalists (with henpecked people) exceeds the critical mass, they will move from small dirty tricks (such as sanctions) to rough pressure and dictatorship. Then the antiglobalists may face a dilemma: either submit and wipe themselves off, or stick with a horn, despite the almost guaranteed end of all times, i.e. Armageddon.
    1. Bulanov Offline Bulanov
      Bulanov (Vladimir) 26 January 2021 15: 06
      0
      When the potential of globalists exceeds the critical mass, the Lord will find new Sodom with Gomorrah and will punish sinners.
  7. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 25 January 2021 15: 45
    -2
    It was Trotsky's principles, albeit in a strongly "modernized" form, that formed the basis of their ideology, which they spread throughout the world:

    What? Trotsky ideologue of liberalism? Cool.
    And by the way, why cut the population? These are consumers and the fewer consumers, the less profit.

    And they perfectly understand that if the "ideology" they support triumphs throughout the world, then chaos will reign on earth. Moreover, it is precisely this chaos that they seek. But why?

    Again, in times of chaos, people earn less and, accordingly, spend less. The experience of the two world warriors has shown that even the prize of the winners is incomparable with their losses, and therefore there are no more big warriors.

    Let us venture to suggest that the ultimate goal of these gentlemen is the elimination of the state as a capable social force.

    What a coincidence! They have similar tools to the communists. Communists also advocate the elimination of the state as one of the forms of exploitation of the working people.

    Since both we and our current (apparently temporary) allies from the Middle Kingdom have one thing in common: the primacy of public interests over private interests and the desire to build a strong state.

    The primacy of public interests over private interests is fascism.
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 25 January 2021 16: 34
      0
      The primacy of public interests over private interests is fascism.

      Not necessarily fascism, but yes, one of the features of fascism is the primacy of the public over the private.
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 25 January 2021 16: 40
        -2
        Who else, besides the fascists, declares the primacy of the public over the private?
        1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
          ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 25 January 2021 16: 43
          +1
          In Russia, they have long laughed at individualists:

          My hut is on the edge - I don't know anything

          Communism likewise believes that public interests are superior to private interests. It can be enumerated for a long time.
          1. Cyril Offline Cyril
            Cyril (Kirill) 25 January 2021 16: 46
            0
            In Russia, they have long laughed at individualists: "My house is on the edge - I don't know anything."

            So "laughed for a long time" not only in Russia, but in any other country. In China, for example, Japan, Korea, and in European countries too.

            Individualism only began to flourish during the Enlightenment. Prior to this, Christian, especially Catholic, morality also proclaimed the primacy of the general over the particular.
            1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
              ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 25 January 2021 17: 16
              0
              Who can argue. "Treat others as you want to be treated with you" is, in fact, a direct denial of individualism.
              1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                Cyril (Kirill) 25 January 2021 17: 21
                0
                Oh no. Don't confuse extreme selfishness and individualism. So this particular phrase is not very suitable :)
                1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
                  ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 25 January 2021 19: 29
                  0
                  Well, I think that this is already talking about the details. I agree that this is not the best illustration of "anti-individualism", but egoism and ind-m go hand in hand after all.
          2. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 25 January 2021 17: 37
            -2
            Communism is an individualistic movement. That is why individualistic sentiments are so strong in modern Russia and China. The legacy of communism. No one knows what happened in Russia, I doubt that there were fundamental differences from Europe.
        2. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 25 January 2021 16: 44
          -1
          Socialists with communists :)

          Also, to some extent, corporatism (in the original meaning of this teramin).
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 25 January 2021 17: 31
            -2
            As far as I understand, classical Marxism is an offshoot of libertarianism, an individualistic movement. Yes, if you look at attempts to implement the ideas of communism, at all sorts of Stalin and Mao, then this is not obvious (maybe they are not communists?), But according to their dogmas, the ultimate goal is to abandon the state (as one of the forms of exploitation) and create a society of free individuals ...
            I'm not very familiar with corporatism, isn't that one of the hallmarks of fascism?
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 25 January 2021 17: 36
              0
              Rejection of the state does not mean rejection of the primacy of the public over the private. It is simply that the theorists of Marxism imply that in the future human society will not need a state superstructure for self-regulation.

              I'm not very familiar with corporatism, isn't that one of the hallmarks of fascism?

              Fascism is, in part, based on corporatist ideology, but not identical with it. For example, corporatism is also one of the foundations of the social policy of the Catholic Church, but it is still difficult to call it a fascist organization.
              1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 25 January 2021 18: 17
                -2
                Quote: Cyril
                Rejection of the state does not mean rejection of the primacy of the public over the private. It is simply that the theorists of Marxism imply that in the future human society will not need a state superstructure for self-regulation.

                And who in the future (according to Marxists) will determine public interests, monitor their observance and punish apostates from these interests? It seems to me that you are wrong. Why then give up the state ?.
                1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                  Cyril (Kirill) 25 January 2021 18: 37
                  0
                  And who in the future (according to Marxists) will determine public interests, monitor their observance and punish apostates from these interests?

                  Different Marxists answer this question differently. Someone argues that in a classless society there will be no crimes at all, because the main (in the opinion of Marxists) reason for these crimes is absent - social 9-class stratification.

                  Other Marxists, more mundane, say that this problem will be solved by temporary or permanent social structures.

                  Why then give up the state ?.

                  This question is not for me - this is a question for the Marxists, with whom I have nothing in common :)

                  It seems to me that you are wrong.

                  I'm just saying how the Marxists see this problem, I'm not in the business :)
                  1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
                    Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 25 January 2021 21: 12
                    -2
                    Isn't communism about individual freedoms and human rights?
                    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
                      Cyril (Kirill) 26 January 2021 00: 38
                      -1
                      No, far from it. Rather, it is about the happiness of everyone through the common
    2. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
      Alexzn (Alexander) 25 January 2021 16: 44
      +2
      The primacy of public interests over private interests is fascism.

      An extremely unfortunate statement. The primacy of public interests is actually a property of a developed social system, that's when this primacy is brought to the point of absurdity, and even the interests of a group are put into absolute, and even at the expense of other groups ...
      1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
        Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 25 January 2021 18: 11
        -2
        In my understanding, if the interests of society are observed through the interests of the individual, this is not fascism. If the interests of society prevail over the interests of the individual (there is an opposition of these interests, primacy), then this is fascism.
        1. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
          Alexzn (Alexander) 25 January 2021 18: 27
          +2
          Not true. Social sciences do not intend to interpret the existing apparatus of terms at will. I (not only me) understood the message, but you are not formulating it well.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 25 January 2021 21: 06
            -2
            How successful? And in science?
            1. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
              Alexzn (Alexander) 25 January 2021 21: 41
              +1
              There is a social imperative:

              freedom of one citizen ends where freedom of another begins

              The state acts as the regulator of this imperative. There are contradictions between the interests of the individual and the interests of the citizen as a member of society (state). The formula the state for a person, and not a person for the state, is a beautiful fiction that emphasizes the inadmissibility of bias in the suppression of civil rights by the state. Precisely skew. Ideally, when a citizen agrees to limit his rights in favor of the public interest, while respecting the state's basic individual rights.
              The format of the possible answer does not allow expanding the explanation here, it is very complex and requires a lot of volume.
          2. isofat Offline isofat
            isofat (isofat) 25 January 2021 21: 46
            +1
            Alexzn... You prevented them, destroyed the picture. Two kindred spirits portrayed that the delirium that they carry is filled with deep meaning, which only a select few can understand.

            Since I have already entered the discussion, I will note only the communists there is a scientific basis for their theory. The communists have everything - ideology, theory, scientific justification ... they even have a rich history! There is no most important thing, I will not say. You are smart, guess. smile
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 26 January 2021 00: 40
              0
              only the communists have a scientific basis for their theory.

              If you haven't heard of people like Thomas Hobbes, Ludwig von Mises and other thinkers of liberalism, these are your problems.
            2. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
              Alexzn (Alexander) 26 January 2021 08: 28
              0
              note, only the communists have a scientific basis for their theory

              Show off. To be completely consistent, the theory of scientific communism cannot be called scientific at all. It is akin to Freudianism. These are universal theories that take a scientific approach, but are not fully scientific. Especially with regard to the conclusions drawn due to their non-falsifiability. The thesis - the victory of communism is inevitable - negates the very scientific approach and turns "scientific communism" into an ideological dogma.
              1. isofat Offline isofat
                isofat (isofat) 26 January 2021 16: 20
                +1
                Quote: AlexZN
                The thesis - the victory of communism is inevitable - negates the very scientific approach and turns "scientific communism" into an ideological dogma.

                Alexzn... Society develops and the existing stage of development is replaced by another, more perfect one.

                Socialism, Communism - these are the names invented by scientists for the next stages of development of our society, by scientists who study how our society develops, its laws of development.

                The thesis - the victory of communism is inevitable, just about that. About development. That the next system is more fair to the common man.

                On this scale, Capitalism is followed by Socialism, then Communism. Unless, of course, our development stops. yes
        2. Cyril Offline Cyril
          Cyril (Kirill) 25 January 2021 18: 41
          0
          If the interests of society prevail over the interests of the individual (there is an opposition of these interests, primacy), then this is fascism.

          Yet you are wrong. For example, Confucian morality establishes such primacy, but it cannot be considered fascist.

          For example. even in modern Japan and South Korea there are such tendencies. They just differ in that it is on the level of morality and is not necessary for every member of society, although it is encouraged. While in fascist countries this was a mandatory requirement for a citizen.
          1. Oleg Rambover Offline Oleg Rambover
            Oleg Rambover (Oleg Pitersky) 25 January 2021 21: 10
            -2
            Quote: Cyril
            For example. even in modern Japan and South Korea there are such tendencies. They just differ in that it is on the level of morality and is not necessary for every member of society, although it is encouraged. While in fascist countries this was a mandatory requirement for a citizen.

            Then it does not work that this is an individual decision of a person? Free will, not coercion?
            1. Cyril Offline Cyril
              Cyril (Kirill) 26 January 2021 00: 41
              0
              True, here the individual is harmoniously combined with the public.
  8. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
    ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 25 January 2021 16: 23
    0
    Quote: Oleg Rambover
    The primacy of public interests over private interests is fascism.

    More stupidity has not been heard lately.

    Yes, fascism implies the advantage of public interests over private ones, but does this mean that any system of thought that implies this superiority is fascism? It's like saying, "Since tigers are striped, everyone who is striped is tigers."
    1. Cyril Offline Cyril
      Cyril (Kirill) 25 January 2021 16: 35
      -2
      Fascism is one of the systems in which this principle was fully embodied. So no, not stupidity, although not quite an accurate statement.
      1. ASK.21.07 Offline ASK.21.07
        ASK.21.07 (Artyom Karagodin) 25 January 2021 16: 43
        -1
        Perhaps you are right.
      2. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
        Alexzn (Alexander) 25 January 2021 16: 46
        +1
        Not at all accurate, although the message is clear.
  9. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 25 January 2021 18: 46
    +2
    Quote: Jacques Sekavar
    1. The state is the political organization of the ruling class.
    2. The US Federal Reserve is a closed joint stock company, each joint stock bank of which has its own owners.
    3. According to experts, the US Federal Reserve will print banknotes, and to whom and under what conditions it will be given, the government, for example, will be engaged in the BlackRock investment campaign, which has its own shareholders and owners.
    4. He who pays calls the tune. The Fed or BlackRock is not the essence, but the essence is that it is not the state that manages big capital as in the PRC or the Russian Federation, but the big capital of the United States through its structures controls the state and not vice versa.

    Does it have a meaning? If the Fed is not a state organization, then this indicates that the United States is not state capitalism. You still do not understand what state capitalism is. Even within a regular wiki, you can pick up the definition. Civil Code is still when the state (bourgeois) is the main owner and regulator of the economy.
  10. Alexzn Offline Alexzn
    Alexzn (Alexander) 26 January 2021 16: 51
    0
    Quote: isofat
    Quote: AlexZN
    The thesis - the victory of communism is inevitable - negates the very scientific approach and turns "scientific communism" into an ideological dogma.

    Alexzn... Society develops and the existing stage of development is replaced by another, more perfect one.

    Socialism, Communism - these are the names invented by scientists for the next stages of development of our society, by scientists who study how our society develops, its laws of development.

    The thesis - the victory of communism is inevitable, just about that. About development. That the next system is more fair to the common man.

    On this scale, Capitalism is followed by Socialism, then Communism. Unless, of course, our development stops. yes

    On this scale ... By the way, capitalism is followed by communism (to be precise within this scale), socialism is the first stage of the next formation, i.e. communism. For this reason, Western literature spoke of communist countries.
    Of course, society is increasingly socializing and democratizing. At the same time, I am not at all sure that humanity will live to see a more perfect society, and I am definitely sure that it will not live to see communism. Humanity is doomed, NTP will kill him.