After talking with quite a few representatives of the “Western school”, I came to an interesting conclusion. It cannot be said that in the American, British and other higher educational institutions, “Kapstran”, along with their own politicaleconomic calculations, they would not study the experience and theories of the "enemy" from the "socialist camp". Studied. They studied the works of Marx, articles by Lenin and other theoreticians of the so-called "scientific communism". But this happened, as a rule, with the obligatory proviso that this is how not to do it. That is, people, as it were, reading these materials in advance, were programmed that everything stated there was wrong. And this, to put it mildly, is not entirely true.
Deviating somewhat from the topic, I will say that, in fact, the educational institutions of the USSR also, in general, adhered to a similar, far from the best, practice in the study of Western models. Subsequently, including this, ultimately, in many respects had a negative impact on the development of our own economy. I personally firmly adhere to the belief that it is necessary to study and use any and anyone's experience of development or action in those areas where it has shown itself to be successful in practice, regardless of some political sympathy.
But back to our "sworn Western partners". If they had studied at least the same "Capital" by Karl Marx more attentively and less biasedly, they would certainly have paid attention to the fact that the development of capitalism in a liberal system, that is, with the so-called democratic method of government, is essentially incompatible with that. what is called national interests. For free-form capitalism, the main goal is only to increase capital. This is already an axiom. We saw evidence of this already during the First and Second World Wars, when individual representatives of the business elites of warring states nevertheless carried out secret trade deals among themselves, even contrary to the strategic interests of their own countries and peoples. In the modern world, we are regularly faced with a massive transfer of production facilities to regions with a lower cost of the production process, in order to increase profits, but clearly at the expense of employment and the development of the economic potential of our own countries. And also with the withdrawal, especially by large entrepreneurs, of a huge amount of capital to various "offshore zones" and other places with low tax and control requirements, to the detriment of the tax income of their own states and investments in their economies. All this undoubtedly weakens the production and economic potential of the donor countries, which, as a rule, are now the developed powers of the Western world. And also increases their vulnerability to external factors.
While this is by no means a complete prerogative of the West, it is a general trend of big business in general. Russia, through the efforts of some "especially gifted market people" who were in power in the nineties, also headed for the liberal-capitalist stream of development. And now look at the Abramovichs, Deripasoks, Grefs and similar figures. These people seem to be considered great representatives of Russian business. But where are the bulk of their capital located? How dependent are they on outside pressure? Are they able, as top representatives of huge nationally significant corporations, to solve nationally significant tasks if they contradict the interests of their capital? Of course not! It is enough to look at the recent history with Rusal, or try to answer the question "Why are there no Sberbank branches in the Russian Crimea?" Moreover, in pursuit of super-profits, having integrated into this very "global system", and from time to time already in it, "getting in the head" from even stronger external players, these citizens immediately turn for help to this very state, from which they withdraw capital and who are underpaid taxes, citing the "social significance" of their enterprises. And they receive this very help, thanks to the described methods of influence of big business on power just below in the article. Here, in my opinion, in general, the question arises as to how acceptable and how beneficial is it for the Russian state to find such enterprises in private hands? But this is a somewhat different topic.
But let's go further. Perhaps even more dangerous is the growing possibility of big capital already influencing the government. In a world where everything is sold and everything is bought, capital has every opportunity to influence the so-called democratic institution of the formation of the governing bodies of the state. Through the media, direct subsidies from various movements or organizations, political parties, etc., not to mention ordinary corruption, direct and indirect pressure is exerted on the electoral masses. And they, then, in the course of the electoral process, lead to power, in fact, just people needed by capital. In this way or in the way of so-called “lobbying”, which, from my point of view, is just a beautiful name for the same corruption, big business “pushes” at the state level already beneficial decisions and laws, which, again, often do not correspond to the real interests of the peoples and states in which all this is happening.
It is as a result of all this, in the Western world in general, and in the United States of America in particular and in the most significant form, today we see an extremely entertaining picture: the interests of giant corporations, which, in fact, are the mainstay of the greatness of the American economy, at this stage of development already they simply run counter to the interests of the United States itself as a state. This, apparently, is well understood by the 45th American President Donald Trump, who unexpectedly for many suddenly climbed onto the "political Olympus" of the overseas superpower not from among their local established "political elite", but from real business. He, as a clear nationalist and patriot of his country, from the very beginning of his presidency, really tries to take all sorts of steps to return capital and real production to the territory of the United States. He is trying to limit the dependence of his state on products imported from outside, and he wants to force those who make huge profits on these imports to share with the state the way of paying taxes and import duties. But these timid attempts to get the state out of the tenacious "tentacles of globalism", most likely, will not be able to radically influence the situation. The mutual guarantee of transnational monopolies has long and firmly linked practically all spheres of the economy, as well as the domestic and foreign policy of the United States. And this whole machine is now, in fact, working against its own legitimate president, sabotaging his activities with all its might, and trying to discredit and limit his rights as much as possible. And no matter how much Trump would like this, it will no longer be possible to revive the once strongest national economy of his country in the world, precisely in national status.
And in Russia, too, the first bells of globalism are already "ringing" - for example, the story of gasoline prices, which rose sharply due to the fact that Russian oil companies were simply more profitable to sell their products on the foreign market at a higher price than to provide the necessary fuel own country. What it is? And this is a direct harm to national interests from globalism. And the absence of Sberbank branches in Crimea is the same. Mr. Gref is much more interested in the profits of his company's subsidiaries abroad, which may come under threat due to sanctions, than in the development of financial services in his own country. Moreover, these "daughters" with "Sberbank" have in common only the name and the initial capital injection, otherwise they are purely foreign legal entities. That is, the state of the Russian sense from them, in fact, zero. This is all very unpleasant. But still, it is less unpleasant than when its own, in fact, national bank, which controls the emission of money in the country, and representatives of the legislative branch, openly boycott the economic policy of its president. And this is exactly what is happening now in the United States, in a country with a presidential system of government, mind you. And money is not some piastres, lira or hryvnia, and not even respectable Swiss francs, for example, it is essentially the single world currency at the moment, the blood in the body of the global economy - the American dollar.
At the very beginning of the eighties, when it was decided to "untie" the dollar from the gold equivalent, it apparently seemed to the Americans a brilliant idea. After all, only they printed dollars, and their value, in fact, was supported by the economy of the rest of the world. That is, it would seem, print as much as you want, and you will be the richest in the world! In fact, this has been the case for a fairly long period of time. But by the beginning of the XNUMXst century, this turned for the United States into the fact that this state itself practically lost control over its own currency. Its value and the volume of emission are now determined by the exchange games of huge transnational financial corporations, and an organization called the US Federal Reserve, which, despite its name, is by no means a state one, but is a complex symbiosis of several private banking structures. And the US Treasury, in fact, is simply physically fulfilling the order of the Federal Reserve to issue paper money in the amount it needs. I will not analyze here the complex system of distribution of financial flows in the United States, but the result of the functioning of this system is that today in America there are a fairly large number of super-rich corporations and banking houses, and the state itself, at the same time, has an absolutely cosmic debt, the repayment of which is already even in theory it is not possible. The state economy of the United States is a huge "soap bubble", which, by some inertia, still persists, contrary to all the capitalism and market laws, the standard of which America is allegedly. And this is absolutely known to the whole world. Giant American corporations are American only in name. This capital has long been "globalized", having lost its national identity, and began to live its own life, directly according to the laws of Marx. Initially promoting the ideas of globalism, the United States had as its ultimate goal to subjugate the entire world economic system, but at the same time it ignored the basic principles of capital development. And it played a cruel joke on them. Now the American state itself, with all its power and security structures, living, in fact, on the credit money of transnational corporations and entirely dependent on them, has become just a powerful tool for suppressing competition around the world in the hands of all the same corporations.
On the world's stock exchanges, huge amounts of money are circulated daily in the form of so-called securities. In recent years, it is this, and not production and real turnover, that is the most powerful source of profits. The bulk of money is no longer made from commodities, and in most cases the ultimate goal of bargaining is not a certain material substance, but a banal “fat”. Money makes money, it is also a carry-over commodity, that is, property, and the purpose of the transaction. A certain real product is often just a fiction, a bargaining tool, but not a real goal. "Future contract" - a futures contract for not yet produced oil or orange juice, for which oranges have not even grown yet, is already being sold from hand to hand a number of times, bringing profits to its short-term owners, of course, who have nothing to do with fuel or oranges. And no one is, by and large, interested if this oil is actually produced, or if a platform somewhere in the Gulf of Mexico explodes from a fire, and the oranges may simply not ripen due to the arrival of a cold front. It doesn't matter, because the main margin from all this has already been received anyway. Various shares in certain enterprises and funds wander around the world in paper form, gaining and losing price as a result of stock speculation, and their price, therefore, sometimes differs from reality at times. This is called capitalization. That is, the entire current global financial system is also a huge "soap bubble", even steeper than the US economy. But every bubble bursts sooner or later. And something tells me that this modern one will burst before my own eyes. Not that I really wanted to, of course. This whole system seems to me to be deeply immoral and unfair, nevertheless it will be bad from its collapse, I think, it will be almost all living in the territories affected by this phenomenon, that is, me too. Almost the entire world in which we live and to which we are already accustomed will collapse. And this is always difficult and dangerous.
A reasonable question arises: Who benefits from all this? After all, it would seem that if the system collapses, then it is the system-forming institutions that should suffer first of all - these same financial giants who created it and manage it for their own profit? But in fact, everything is quite simple - their benefits will not go anywhere. All these inflated stocks and worthless loan bonds that no one will ever give back, futures, etc. will disappear, world currencies will collapse, stock exchanges and banks will go bankrupt, governments will undoubtedly fall and entire state entities may collapse. A huge number of "investors" will lose their paper fortunes. But for their "washed-up" inflated currencies and painted "securities", these very corporations, or rather their ruling elite, the real owners, have already bought themselves quite material values around the world: large real estate objects, land plots, mineral deposits, industrial, agricultural and transport complexes, technological patents and chains for the production of a wide variety of items, as well as all sorts of little things such as tons of rare metals and precious stones, art objects and even weapons. So they expect a general collapse, figuratively speaking, with a smile. “The king is dead! Long live the king!" And after a general collapse, everything will apparently have to be organizationally resumed from the level of about the beginning of the twentieth century, in the form of commodity capitalism, smoothly moving into a stable paper (or already digital) channel under the control of all the same structures that will already have in their hands even more money, more property, more power, and an even greater share of the planetary development resources. Voila! The only thing that can prevent the implementation of this wonderful idyll of world capital (if we exclude the next global war, which can also happen on this basis) is the same theory of Marx. As a result of the collapse of the existing world order, uncontrollable chaos may arise, and it would suddenly occur to someone in all this to engage in the "expropriation of the expropriators." Specifically for Russia - nothing new. It is also interesting that the poorest and underdeveloped countries of the world, which are still not included in the global capital system or are included only minimally, may become indirect beneficiaries of the coming general financial cataclysm. That is, they are also little dependent on it. Their way of life, in fact, will not change in any way, and perhaps there will be some revival, against the background of the collapse of the overwhelming majority of developed countries.
Can this global financial armageddon be avoided? I think that at this stage in the development of globalism, it is hardly possible. But you can certainly at least try to greatly mitigate its consequences specifically for our country. We have already firmly entered the capitalist system, but the prerogative of our state, fortunately, is still a real commodity economy. And introduced against us, initially with the aim of unfair competition in the global market, international sanctions, oddly enough, also served us well in this, forcing us to learn to work more independently. This also applies to the production, but most importantly, the financial sphere of the economy: we are learning to live without credit funds of transnational corporations, and thus we get out of direct dependence on them. In world history, there are examples of the successful development of capitalism in line with the national idea of a specific state. These are the German Third Reich of the 30s-40s of the last century and the modern Chinese economy. An interesting model is also the projects of some countries of the "socialist camp" that allowed the development of small private entrepreneurship, such as Hungary and socialist Yugoslavia. But this still cannot be attributed to macroeconomics. In order not to be accused of various mortal sins, I specifically clarify: at the moment I am considering Hitler's Germany from the point of view of exclusively used economic instruments, and that they were the most effective, hardly anyone who understands this topic can doubt. Both in the system of modern China and in the German Reich, at the same time, there are absolutely identical foundations for building "economic miracles" - this is a rigid one-party, and essentially authoritarian, management system, a planned economy, as well as almost complete state control over economic activities and the information environment in country. Moreover, even large private companies are subject to state regulation of their activities in the national interests. Strategically important industries and individual enterprises in them either simply belong to the state, or have its representatives in their governing bodies. This is how you can make capitalism work for the good of your own people.
At the same time, no one forbids anyone to receive even super-profits and even on the international market, they are simply controlled, and in a predetermined (considerable) percentage volume are directed to the channel necessary for the country and its economy. For example, in the development and expansion of the same own production, or in recreation programs for workers, instead of yachts, castles and foreign football clubs. The latter, by the way, is precisely the German experience since the mid-30s. Russia now, in my opinion, even though under the screeching, whistling and snot of liberals actively sponsored by our "sworn partners", is nevertheless timidly trying to head in this direction too. Hopefully, this is indeed the case, because this is the most correct way to mitigate the consequences of the global financial crisis to the maximum. We really have all the forces and resources to withstand aggressive external factors. Yes, this is not the easiest way, and in the beginning you may even have to sacrifice something. I understand that these are hackneyed phrases, and our people are already tired of such. Nevertheless, let's look at the above-mentioned historical examples - these measures have allowed specific states to literally "rise from their knees" and become world leaders in literally one or two decades! This is somewhat different from what we were promised in 1917, then three generations were asked to be patient, but in eighty years they did not reach the designated goal. This is not a communist utopia, but a very real and practically proven model. Not exactly according to Marx, but without losing sight of his basic principles. And mutually beneficial cooperation with the outside world is quite possible for itself on a bilateral basis. Without the imposed mediation of bloated stock exchanges, international funds and transnational corporations.
Here you can learn from the sad experience of the United States. I apologize in advance for such a comparison, but, in my opinion, the relationship between globalist corporations and the United States, in this case, resembles the cohabitation of a parasite and its host. The parasite carrier on itself grows, feeds, warms and protects from external threats, and the parasite, in turn, developing safely, sucks out the vital forces from the carrier and, in fact, slowly kills it, while scattering eggs in the external environment for its further reproduction ... This is so that the life cycle of the parasite is not interrupted at the moment when its host dies sooner or later. And the larvae of this infection, unfortunately, have already attacked our territory. But the intensive therapy undertaken on time can still prevent the development of this worm - globalism, which slowly steals the vital forces of the state. It is necessary to destroy the larvae at the earliest stage, otherwise it will be too late - they will stick tightly, as in America. And there is no need to listen to sweet-voiced songs about the future of general global prosperity in the soft featherbed of inflated stock exchange values. In Russian speaking, this is a common "layout", the chance of winning here for our country is approximately equal to the chance of winning at "thimbles" on the market square with experienced "thugs". And the bait and the extras, and even the first supposedly winnings for the seed - everything is exactly the same, everything is in place. Only on a global scale.