Military Review

The world on the threshold of new times

72
The world on the threshold of new timesToday, the world is facing a fundamental, radical breakdown. In terms of strength and scope, it immeasurably surpasses the scraps of 1917 and 1991, because in those cases there were known and even, in a certain sense, familiar ideas within which changes took place. Now there is no description language, no alternative ideas.

Last time at stories Such a situation arose in Europe in the 16th — 17th centuries, when, after more than a thousand years of Christianity, the most severe collapse began in the ideology and economics of feudalism. It was a very difficult time, and God forbid that it be repeated. To avoid this, it is necessary even before the changes destroy all protective civilization mechanisms, to propose new ideas that are no less civilizational in scale. But they have not been found yet.

What is the essence of the changes that began before our eyes?

The main problem of our time is that the mechanism that has provided the economic development of humanity for several hundred years has been exhausted.

The birth of technological zones

The modern development model, which is now called “scientific and technical progress,” took shape in the 17th — 18th centuries in Western Europe after the “value revolution” of the 16th – 17th centuries, which abolished the ban on usury prevailing for more than a thousand years. Of course, like any biblical ban, it was not fully respected, but in the system of economic relations as a whole, the lending rate was not used. Where it was used almost legally — in trade republics like Venice or Genoa — he played, rather, the role of insurance premium. Actually, production processes were based on shop principles, under which both the volume, technology, and the nomenclature of production were severely limited.

I will not now discuss the reasons for the emergence of capitalism (that is, capital as a source of profit at the expense of loan interest), but I will draw the reader’s attention to one fundamental circumstance: with its appearance, a serious problem has arisen - where to get the product?

It is no secret that the late antique manufactory provided a fairly high productivity of labor - certainly higher than the medieval shop production. However, contrary to the theses of Marx, it gave way to a less productive feudalism. Why? But the fact is that the manufactories of that time did not have markets, the slave-owning society simply did not create a sufficient volume of consumers. While the Roman state supported the city plebs (gave it “bread and circuses”) at the expense of non-economic sources of income — military mining and silver mines in Spain — the manufactories worked quite successfully. Then they were bound to die.

A similar problem inevitably awaited the nascent centers of capitalism. Yes, there were sources of money for which the manufactory could be created. But excessive production and new, innovative products demanded new consumers. Where to find them? The only place of sale could be the external market.

Of course, the exported products had to exceed the local one - and cost less, and be better or just new (figuratively speaking, a plow instead of a plow), and therefore its receipt inevitably destroyed local production, which, in turn, filled up the army of the unemployed in the field and created the ground for the development of capitalism. It is worth remembering the story of fencing in England when “sheep ate people”, because the fabrics produced by the manufactory method were cheaper than handmade fabrics or terrible famine in India, when, according to eyewitnesses, hundreds of thousands, if not Millions of weavers and their families who could not compete with factory fabrics imported from England ...

However, this is, in a sense, a lyrical digression. The main thing is advanced financing of innovations. It makes sense to invest in the production of traditional products and services, as well as in the development of new ones, only if markets are constantly expanding. On the one hand, they must ensure the sale of traditional products that are steadily becoming cheaper, and on the other hand, they must ensure that the “technological metropolis” receives additional revenues that pay for the production of innovative products.

Accordingly, as early as the 18th century, the development of so-called technological zones began (Oleg Vadimovich Grigoriev's term, who developed the corresponding theory in the early 2000-s), which became such “technological metropolises” and gradually expanded their markets and political influence. Sometimes “technological metropolises” and simply metropolises coincided. Britain categorically forbade the development of production in its colonies, they were to remain purely raw materials appendages. Even the financial system was adapted so that independent sources of capital could not arise in the colonies. In the UK, went paper money (pounds sterling), forbidden to export, and in the colonies - minted "on the ground" gold coins, guineas, who all who wanted to come or return home, had to carry with them.

UK and became the first technological area. The second one could be France, but it turned out to be a victim of the Great French Revolution and the Napoleonic wars, and therefore it did not form its own zone and, moreover, became part of the British zone. The second technological area was Germany, which included Austria (Hungary), part of Italy, Northern and Eastern Europe, and also Russia (specifically as technological areas, not states). Finally, this zone was formed after the victory in the Franco-Prussian war, by the end of the 60-ies of the XIX century.

The third zone was created by the USA, after liberation from British colonial dependence, they were given the opportunity to develop their industry, whose growth rates especially accelerated during the Civil War of 1861 — 1865. The fourth at the beginning of the twentieth century was Japan.

However, by the end of the XIX century, the first three zones had problems: their expansion in the Atlantic basin began to slow down sharply, as free markets were exhausted. What does this mean in terms of capital? And the fact that investment in innovation and new production became less and less profitable. The crisis began to fall in the efficiency of capital. It was rather difficult to notice and understand it, since the process was uneven and in individual industries and in different regions, but the idea that capitalism needed expanding markets for normal development was already flashed by Adam Smith. At the beginning of the last century, it became a source of controversy between Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, the latter actively criticizing Lenin’s thesis that “capitalism creates markets for itself”. Luxembourg, as we understand today, was right, but because of this dispute, the topic itself became a “taboo” for many decades in the USSR, which in many ways led the country to death.

The result of the aforementioned crisis was a sharp intensification of cyclical crises, which were previously normal, but not critical. Now they have become much longer. Depression after the 1907 crisis, even twenty years ago, was called “Great” in the United States. Most importantly, it became clear that the only way to continue the development was to redistribute the sales markets to our advantage. The First World War was a battle for markets with a single direct result - one of the technological zones, which had previously had not only its own production, but its own monetary system, lost this system. There was also an indirect, but not unimportant, consequence: the coming to power in the former Russian Empire of the party, which managed to do what the national bourgeoisie of the tsarist time failed to do, was to build its own technological zone. Fifth and last.

By the beginning of the twentieth century, the volume of the market that was to be controlled by a truly independent state was about 50 million
biteles ...

I want to clarify what is meant in this context by the word “independence” and its not quite accurate synonym for “self-sufficiency”. An independent state is one whose economy has a core independent of external factors. First, it contains all (or almost all, with the exception of unprincipled) sectors of the economy. Secondly, in all these sectors, the state is at the forefront of global positions or can reach them quickly enough. And, thirdly, the country is capable of developing for a long time even in the complete absence of foreign trade. Isolation for some period should not be a disaster for her. A truly independent state cannot fail to have an independent economy. The converse, generally speaking, may be incorrect.

So, by the beginning of the last century, only five or six really independent states remained in Europe, having a self-sufficient economy. Russian Empire, Germanic, Austro-Hungary, France, Great Britain and, possibly, Spain. All other countries were inevitably forced to join, as satellites or “junior” partners, associations headed by one of the countries listed.

World War I did not resolve the basic economic contradictions. For the redistribution of markets was necessary the second war, from which only two of the five technological zones emerged unscathed. The German and Japanese simply disappeared, and before the end of the war, Britain refused to claim its own zone, allowing the US to trade directly with the colonies of the United Kingdom, bypassing London.

As was to be expected, at first the United States developed perfectly, mastered new markets, made bombs and rushed into space ... But then the same problems with sales began.

By the mid-twentieth century, the volume of markets that the country needed to control in order to ensure a self-sufficient and developing economy was about 500 million people. At this moment, only two states could be truly independent and leaders of large inter-country associations, no more. And so it happened - only the USSR and the USA remained. China and India could not be taken into account - they were not consumer markets in the modern sense of the word, their economies were largely natural in nature. However, the world economy continued to develop, and by the end of the third quarter of the twentieth century, the volume of markets necessary for the normal development of a self-sufficient economy reached a value of the order of a billion people ... And it became clear that only one independent state could remain in the world.

Failed victory

Contrary to popular belief, the chances of becoming a winner were inclined to the side of the Soviet Union.

The crisis was not to avoid both superpowers. But since the volume of markets in the Soviet zone was significantly smaller than that of the American one, our crisis began earlier, namely, at the very beginning of the 60s. However, the disproportions due to the planned Soviet economy, if possible, were compensated, so that the crisis developed slowly. By the end of 70-x, we only reached the zero rate of economic development. But in the United States it all started, albeit later, but quickly and rigidly. 1971 year - default, failure to exchange dollars for gold, then defeat in the war in Vietnam. 1973 — 74 years - the oil crisis, a sharp rise in oil prices and, accordingly, costs, then - stagnation1. It was a natural crisis of a fall in the efficiency of capital, the reincarnation of the crisis of the late XIX - early XX century. Marx could smile: capitalism was threatened with defeat in full accordance with his theory, but not because socialism grew faster, but because it fell more slowly.

Did the members of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU realize after the catastrophic “oil” crisis of 1973 that the Soviet Union won the cold war and that they were faced with the question of whether it was necessary to kill the enemy and force the destruction of the “western” economy and the USA? I spent a lot of energy trying to figure out whether this question was formulated in an explicit form, and which one was answered. My investigation (which consisted in conversations with former high-ranking functionaries of the Central Committee of the CPSU and the KGB of the USSR) revealed the following. First, the question was posed. Secondly, the answer was reduced to two much simpler, and most importantly, technological problems.

One of them concerned the capabilities of the USSR to control the territories that were at that time in the zone of influence of the United States. After the collapse of the “sovereign”, inevitably, uncontrollable, largely destructive and dangerous for the whole world processes should begin there. The second concerned the readiness of the USSR to be alone with China, which by that time had already started a technological revolution.

The answers to both of these questions turned out to be negative - the country's leaders came to the conclusion that the USSR was unable to control almost half of the world, slipping into totalitarianism, rampant terrorism and anarchy, and at the same time limit China’s growing opportunities. The USSR began a process that was later called “detente”.

In fact, it was a long chain of concessions to the enemy. The Soviet Union entered into negotiations with the United States on strategic weapons, which lowered the severity of America’s budgetary problems. The West was in an acute oil crisis, and the USSR began to supply oil and gas there. The ideologists of capitalism did not know how to deal with Soviet ideological and political pressure (just read the texts that Kissinger and Brzezinski wrote at that time), and the USSR went to negotiations on humanitarian issues, which ended with the signing in 1975 of the famous Helsinki Act, which included the so-called “humanitarian basket”, which later became the basis for the total criticism of the USSR / Russia regarding violations of “human rights”.

In other words, the leadership of the USSR decided to maintain the status quo - not to expand due to the destruction of a competitor, but to try to gain a foothold in the more or less fixed boundaries of the project areas. It was a fundamental mistake - as if the child would not just refuse to grow, but would take steps to actually implement this idea (for example, instead of school, he would continue to go to kindergarten for many years).

Meanwhile, the US leadership found a way out. It was necessary to launch a new “technological wave”, which is impossible to do in a recession without war. And since it is impossible to expand markets, it is necessary to imitate this expansion. The US monetary authorities began to stimulate final demand, which was the essence of the Reaganomics policy.

The goal was achieved: a new “technological wave” was launched, the USSR collapsed - both as a technological zone and as a separate country. Theoretically, at this point should stop. It was necessary to “close” the debts that had been formed during the decade of “Reaganomics” by assets (including markets) obtained from the collapse of the enemy. However, at that time, the Clinton administration, Wall Street proteges, came to power, for whom the issue and the creation of new debts were the main sources of income. Instead of “closing the tap”, they used the resulting assets as collateral for new debts. As a result, Clinton's “golden age” came in, which was replaced by permanent crises of the 2000s. And today we can safely say that the current crisis is the reincarnation of the 70 crisis. Another crisis in the fall of capital efficiency. Only earlier, the fall took place within the framework of the competition of several technological zones, and today - within one. The essence of the matter does not change.

There is another subtlety. The previous two crises occurred in a situation of more or less natural accumulation of debts. The exception was the beginning of the 30's. Then the horror of the “Great” Depression was largely caused by the fall in private demand after the 20s, when it was somewhat stimulated by the credit mechanism. Now the period of massive demand stimulation due to the mechanism of “Reaganomics” is coming to an end, so not slow decay (as it happened in the USSR in 80-s), but rather a very deep drop preceding everyone.

But it's not so bad. Most importantly, the mechanism of scientific and technological progress, which for several centuries defined human development, refuses. He is exhausted. Completely. He has no more resource.

Therefore, Russia faces serious problems associated with the cancellation of overwhelming debts and, accordingly, the destruction of the entire global financial system. This means that we will have to look for a new development model not in the quiet of the cabinets, having at least several decades ahead, but in extremely harsh social and political conditions. One may explain that the problems of Egypt do not threaten us, but let's reason sensibly: our difference is only in one thing: that the majority of the Egyptian population spends 80 percent of their income on food, and we only 40. But with the increase in prices that is observed today, how long can we wait?

The triumph of loan interest

It was at that time that the refusal of victory in the “cold war” actually began to abandon the basic principles of the “Red” project. Somewhat later, in the second half of the 1980-s, Gorbachev announced that the USSR would no longer carry its values ​​to the world, since it was moving to the values ​​“universal”. Having abandoned the Soviet system of globalization, Gorbachev inevitably led us into the globalization system of the “Western” project, since there was simply no other.

I have already talked about the concept of global projects to readers of Friendship of Peoples in the 6 number of the magazine for 2009 a year. Now just to remind the main provisions.

The basis of any global project is a supra-world idea that goes far beyond the limits of visible and perceived space. Moreover, initially such a supra-worldly idea should be declared as Truth for all, for all times and without alternatives. However, this alone is not enough. In order for the masses of people, inspired by the idea, to embark on its embodiment on a global scale, it is necessary to translate this idea into a political dimension, in which, in fact, any ideas are realized. For successful deployment, a global project must establish itself in a pivot country. It should be large, powerful economically and militarily. Only a strong country, being a recognized project leader, can keep other states from continuous conflicts between themselves and ensure that more and more new participants join the project. From this point on, the global project becomes hierarchical, managed from a single center and frankly expansionist.

In the history of mankind, such supra-mundane ideas have not appeared much. In our country, the history of only three projects is more or less known: Christianity (which has long been broken up into several projects), Islam and Communism.

Let us dwell in more detail on the situation of the last 500 years in Europe.
In the XVI century, after a catastrophic “golden” crisis, which occurred as a result of a sharp drop in the price of gold, which then played (and almost the entire written history) the role of the Unified Measure of Value (EMC), and the subsequent destruction of the system of natural feudal economy, Europe began to develop new, capitalist project. His ideological basis was the Reformation. In doctrinal terms, this project departed from the biblical value system and abandoned one of the dogmas - a ban on usury, since the economic base of the Capitalist global project was the lending rate. The ban, of course, could not be lifted in dogma. In the theses of Martin Luther, for example, he is present in full, but was removed in the myth of the so-called "Protestant ethics." In the value system, the basic goal has fundamentally changed. If in the Christian project, in all its variations, justice is the basis, in the Capitalist project it is self-interest, profit.

It is with the Capitalist project, with the presence of a loan interest, that another phenomenon of humanity is associated - the so-called technological society. It could not create any state or civilization, which does not approve the loan interest. The only exception is the Soviet Union.

Gold in the retort

The capitalist project “explicitly” does not exist today. In the XIX century there were major changes in its economic basis, which significantly transformed the basic values. This is due to the fact that the dogmatic structure of the Capitalist project was unstable and strongly demanded changes. Either further refusal of biblical values ​​(the new capitalist states were still largely Christian), or else a return to the ban on usury. It is noteworthy that both ideas were implemented.

Both were born at the end of the 18th century. The first of these, which became the basis of the “Western” project, was a workaround to the alchemists' centuries-old dream of synthesizing gold in a retort. It is clear why they were striving to create exactly gold - at that time it was for all of humanity the Uniform measure of value. Then came a simple solution: if it is impossible to synthesize gold, then you should change the measure of value - set one that can be created in the retort. And then control this vessel, not allowing anyone to him. It is from this idea (I will tell about the second below) that the mechanism of financial capitalism has grown, and then a new global project.

Without going into details, we can say that today the Unified measure of value is the American dollar. And the only “retort” where it is born is the US Federal Reserve, a private office owned by the largest investment banks on Wall Street. The entire global financial system, with its institutions, such as the IMF, the World Bank and many others, see their main task as preserving the Fed’s monopoly on money emission.

Of course, this project, which was actively developed in the 19th — 20th centuries, flourished exclusively due to the loan interest. Its main stages were the creation of the first private state-owned bank (with a monopoly right to issue money) in England in the middle of the 19th century, the creation of the US Federal Reserve System at the beginning of the 20th century, the Bretton Woods agreement 1944, the cancellation of the dollar peg to gold in 1973 and finally “Red” project in 1991 year. And the change of name from Capitalist to “Western” is due to the fact that the expression “West” that has taken root in our media is usually mentioned just to describe the design organizations of the “Western” global project - countries such as the USA or the United Kingdom, and some purely project entities, like IMF, NATO, etc.

The basic value system in the “Western” project has changed quite a lot compared to the Capitalist project. It is to the “Western” project that we are obliged to create a new Sermon on the Mount, “The Protestant Ethic,” which de facto abolished the remaining biblical values. Yes, and the economy underwent major changes, since the main wealth was not created in the material sphere, not in production or at the expense of natural rent, but by the unrestrained multiplication of purely financial assets. This model has led to the fact that the share of financial values, which in the XIX century was less than half of all the assets of mankind, today account for more than 99 percent. Only the volume of financial futures, such as oil, exceeds the amount of physical oil (in price terms) hundreds and thousands of times.

This way of creating assets “on the printing press” in the conditions of an existing technological civilization has brought about the phenomenon of “overconsumption”. The development of a consumer credit system based on the dollar issue has made it possible to dramatically increase the standard of living of a large part of the population within the “Western” project. At the same time, this simultaneously reduced the desire to fight for the realization of project values, since the struggle inevitably reduces the standard of living. Prior to the collapse of the world socialist system, ordinary followers of the “Western” project were united by an external threat. After her disappearance, they completely relaxed. As a result, one of the main areas of inter-project struggle, the demographic, turned out to be lost forever for the “Western” project.

In addition, a change in the basic mode of production could not only seriously change the psychology of the project elite, but also sharply narrowed its managerial part: today, the main design decisions in the “Western” project are actually taken by a narrow group of people consisting of a few dozen people.

Renaissance of socialist ideas

Now back to the fate of the second idea - the ban on usury.
In the 18th century, almost simultaneously with the emergence of the idea of ​​financial capitalism, ideas appeared in the works of utopian socialists, which became the basis for the development of the “Red” project. From the point of view of biblical dogma, he was an attempt to return the ban on usury (in the form of the socialization of the means of production). However, its ideology has one important feature - a serious bias in the social sphere, a powerful development of social technologies.

The weak point of the “Red” project is the complete absence of the mystical component, which at first was not too noticeable due to the contrast with the Capitalist and “Western” projects. However, when opponents began to adopt social technologies from the “Red” project, this disadvantage began to play an increasing role. It is possible that it was precisely the desire to fill the gap that explained Stalin’s attempts to “reanimate” Orthodoxy in the 40s, but his death stopped these undertakings.

The “red” project, which developed in the USSR, if one can put it this way, in a rather harsh “communist” form, lost, but did not completely disappear, but turned into a latent form. A sharp drop in the standard of living in the countries of the “Western” project after the inevitable and imminent global economic crisis will inevitably cause a powerful renaissance of socialist ideas.

In addition, most likely due to problems with the dollar as a single measure of value, mankind (at least temporarily) will be objectively forced to seriously consider the possibility of returning to the everyday practice of biblical dogma banning usury. This option is supported by another circumstance.

The fact is that in the VII century another project appeared on the biblical system of values ​​outside of Europe - the Islamic one. He actively developed almost
1000 years, but the transition to the imperial stage within the Ottoman Empire practically led to its freezing. And only in the 20th century, the attempts of the “Western” and “Red” projects to play the “Islamic card” in their own interests led to the revival of the Islamic global project in a new edition. An important factor in its revival was also the demographic dynamics, as a result of which the population of Muslim countries rapidly grew.

The main feature of the Islamic project is a very strong ideological component. This is due to the fact that the norms and rules of the dormitory included directly into the dogma of the Quran make it active preachers of almost any project carrier. This significantly distinguishes it from all other global projects in which such activity is inherent only at the very early stages of development.

However, one should recall the phenomenon of “technological civilization”. The main problem of the Islamic project, which is clearly eager to control Europe and is looking for a base country to move to the hierarchical stage, is the complete inability to build a modern technological structure on its own base. He cannot use the experience of the Capitalist and “Western” projects - the loan interest in Islam is strictly prohibited. For this reason, it is possible that the penetration of Islam into Europe will begin to take on a socialist connotation, which will inevitably correlate with the rise of similar sentiments in the conditions of an acute economic crisis.

And finally, a few words about China, which today stands at a crossroads. It is not yet clear what path of development he will choose. Whether the fallen banner of the “Red” project will be lifted, that is, it will go along the international project path, or will it remain within the framework of a purely national empire, which in principle will not be disturbed by world processes that do not directly affect the ethnic interests of ethnic Chinese and their vassalage. Much proves that communism in its classical form is not the goal of the Middle Kingdom. China fully adapts the capitalist tools, while the communist paraphernalia is saved only to soften the transformation.

So far, it seems that China is not interested in creating its own global project either on the “Red” or on any other (for example, Buddhist-Confucian) basis, which significantly limits its own ability to control the world.

The collapse of the “Western” project

At the beginning of the 1990s, the United States behaved in full compliance with the basic
design principles. They actively promoted their values ​​as “the only true and universal in the world,” and declared that they would “impute them with fire and sword to all of humanity. We will not now talk about how this position is combined with biblical principles (although one of the interpretations of the parable of the “Babylonian pandemonium” states that the “tower” of the American economy should collapse the same way for the same reason as the Babylonian one). However, the fact remains that an attempt to build a global “Tower of Babel” according to American drawings, to impose the domination of the values ​​of the “Western” project on the world, in general, was not very successful. And what was the reaction of the American authorities?

In my opinion, they began to move back. If we recall President Bush’s policies, one can clearly see attempts to change the economic model. Roughly speaking, he (explicitly or implicitly) addressed the issue of returning to the Capitalist project, overcoming the economic crisis by returning to the original Christian values ​​(as opposed to liberalism and political correctness), isolationism and dropping support for the global financial system from the US budget. In other words, the talk was about the US withdrawal from the “Western” project.

The course was continued by Bush’s successor. In his opening speech
64 session of the UN General Assembly in September 2009, US President Barack Obama said something like this: in his opinion, that year more than ever before, not just in modern, but in human history in general, “the interests of states and peoples are common. " “The time has come for the world to move in a new direction,” the head of the White House said. “We have to start a new era of cooperation based on mutual interests and mutual respect, and our work should start right now.” (Surprisingly, this passage almost literally reproduces Mikhail Gorbachev’s thesis on the new balance of interests doctrine, which should have replaced the balance of power.) Obama acknowledged that “many in the world began to look at America with skepticism and distrust” and that the policy of the former US administration, which was accustomed to acting unilaterally, gave rise to “reflexive anti-Americanism” in the world.

What should be, according to Obama, the coming “era of world mercy”? “Democracy cannot be brought into any country from the outside. Each country will follow a path that is rooted in the culture of its people, and in the past, America has too often been selective in its propaganda of democracy. ” In other words, the United States actually abandons its position as the leader of the “Western” project and no longer intends to impute its principles to the world by force (which did not prevent the United States to participate in military aggression against Libya for a couple of years or, to be more precise, to say to initiate this aggression) .

The conclusions are simple. First, if the United States refuses its role as the leader of the “Western” project (regardless of whether they have the resources to continue this policy or not), then the latter has come to an end. So, sooner or later (considering the world economic crisis that has begun — rather sooner), the disintegration of the technological zone of the United States will begin, that is, the whole system of the global division of labor, built on the American demand, expressed in dollars. One can argue for a long time what the consequences will be, but the simplest thing is to recall the Russia of 1990's, in which the most severe technological degradation was the result of not only the openly anti-state policy of “liberal reformers”, but also a purely objective factor - the destruction of one’s own division of labor with loss of most markets. And the same prospect awaits the USA and the whole world tomorrow.

Secondly, the United States abandoning the hard planting of its value base leaves the whole world in a deep ideological vacuum. For a couple of decades already, people have been told that socialist ideas are notoriously harmful (which was accompanied by colossal illustrative material specially made for this purpose). There is nothing to say about what the supporters of “human rights” and “political correctness” have done with religious ideas. And if in the USSR / Russia it was still possible to abandon basic ideas, nodding to the fact that there is an alternative (“Western”), then today the situation is completely different: there is no alternative. That in itself is extremely dangerous and is fraught with serious problems. First and foremost, the breakup of the world into numerous and highly hostile clusters. Thirdly, we should not forget that the USA is a rather complex society, which includes carriers of various ideologies. Yes, today they are all under strict control, which, in general, is natural, since the high standard of living is ensured precisely due to the dominance of the ideology of the “Western” global project. But, as we know from the example of the USSR, saying “A” (that is, rejecting the dominance of its ideology in the world), we will have to say “B” (to give up the same in inner life). And this means that in the medium term, the US will have to plunge into the midst of the most severe ideological disputes and battles, which are unlikely to contribute to a quick exit from the economic crisis.

Ways to save power

Actually, the battles are already underway. Both in the USA, and in the European Union, and in Russia, rallies continue, with which the authorities are fighting in one way or another. At the same time, they are fully aware of the direction in which the situation unfolds:
in the United States, as they say on the Internet, police and the army are trained on mock-ups of American cities (almost life-size), in Russia they are seriously discussing options for raising taxes, including real estate and luxury. All this suggests that the government understands the general negative of the near future. But how does she understand this?

I draw attention to the rallies. Despite the active attempts (with us - for sure) to give them an anti-power orientation, in fact they are not turning against the authorities, but appealing to it. Society, more precisely, its most active part (and mostly the “middle” class acts), is trying to explain to the authorities that it is necessary to change something in politics. And she reacts quite peculiarly - she comes up with different ways, as if to preserve the existing system at any cost.

The fact is that in the memory of mankind there was not yet a situation where the elite would receive such a colossal (both in terms of volume and relative share) a piece of public pie, while practically without taking any responsibility for their activities. And the point is not that no one wants to give up such happiness - this is understandable. The problem is that whatever the new socio-political system may be, it will inevitably involve much greater personal responsibility.

But this is just scary! These people do not know how to work - simply because their status and their income did not depend in any way on the quality of their activities as administrators and politicians, and for many decades. In contrast, say, from 60's - 70's of the last century, not to mention the earlier times. Of course, by work, I mean the implementation of certain public functions, which are almost automatically assumed by representatives of the elite, not even necessarily state. The very thought of such responsibility was cleaned out within the framework of the “liberal revolution”, starting from the end of the 60s. We feel the consequences today.

These people, our (both Russian and world) elites, cannot afford to take responsibility for themselves, if only because they do not understand what it is, nor call in the power of people who understand this. They fear that their background will look somehow not very convincing. And the elites understand that the negative will multiply and multiply. Refusing constructive dialogue with the society, they inevitably prepare measures to combat the destructive dialogue. To which, sooner or later, it will come as the economic condition worsens.

We have in this sense is not the worst option. In Russia, in general, there is no “middle class” as a tool for stabilizing social and political life. Well, we will return to the 90-s with a narrow class of oligarchy and a beggar, like at that time, other people. The power of such a turn is not afraid; it has already “passed through” a similar situation. Without a riot. True, then almost everyone had free apartments received from the Soviet government, and today there are already problems with housing. Tomorrow, if they raise property taxes, they will become even more.

Of course, the tax can be introduced so that the poor have no problems, but who will believe that our authorities will not do everything as stupid as possible? How many times they attacked the same rake, they will come again, especially as the deputies do not bear any responsibility. The rich will be able to lobby for loopholes for themselves - and the poor (that is, people without significant current incomes), but owning apartments received in the USSR, will pay “full” to ensure the elite has enough budget to maintain the usual level of kickbacks and cuts ".

In the West, too, everything is “not the glory of God.” There, preserving the “middle class” will not work for the simple reason that for the last decades it has mainly existed due to the growth of the debt burden. Recall - the growth of household debt before the crisis (that is, until the autumn of 2008) was about 10 percent per year - or
1,5 trillion dollars a year.

Today, Obama has dramatically increased the budget deficit for the same purpose - to stimulate private demand. However, this cannot last for a long time, which means that the level of demand must inevitably be established, corresponding to the real incomes of households. And these revenues, in general, are known. If one realistically assesses today's inflation and purchasing power of the dollar, then it turns out that the average wages are the same as at the end of 50, and household incomes are the same as in the first half of 60 (the difference was due to an increase in the average working in the same family).

But by modern standards, life in the style of the beginning of 60-x - this is not the standard of living of the “middle” class! Again, these calculations are valid only for current revenues, and as demand decreases, they will begin to fall. So the situation will only get worse. And here we need to remember that one of the definitions of the “middle” class is people with typical consumer behavior (provided with corresponding incomes, of course). But they consume not only goods or services, but also the behavior of the authorities. The current government, which is formed by the modern elite. If the culture of consumption in the majority of the population changes, the power will become extremely unpopular.

It turns out that the elites of almost all countries have serious problems. They are still trying to explain, each to their society, that everything will return to “normal”, but no one believes this. Neither the elite itself, nor the society that goes to rallies.

And there are only three options for the development of the situation. More precisely, two, but with a transition period, which may be delayed. The first option is that the elite pushes from its ranks the leader who changes the situation, the “rules of the game,” the socio-political model, while preserving part of the elite. Not all, of course. The second is that the society “demolishes” the elite, and the anti-elite comes to power (as was the case in Russia in October 1917). And there is an intermediate option in which the elite carefully liquidates in its ranks potential “Napoleons” and at the same time actively pacifies the society. This situation is unstable, we know it well from our history from February to October 1917 (remember the Kornilov revolt!), But, apparently, it is to face, for example, the United States.

It’s impossible to keep the situation by the former “rules of the game”
strictly centralize the management of the economy and the state. A sharp change in the rules requires serious reasons. And deliberately creating them, the elites will not shun and no longer shun anything.

In general, purposeful work on creating a “airbag” for elites has been going on for a long time. The main vector that determines the direction of development of the modern liberal society is the emphasis on the “middle” class. Representatives of this class are constantly inspired with the conviction that different traditional values ​​of a penny penny are not worth it, since they are compensated by the increase in income. Why this is done, of course. This is one of the ways to maintain power. The elite thus explains to the people that the most important and, in general, the only value in the world is money. And she gives money, my love. So, for her, the elite, and we must hold out with all our might ...

It is from here that the destruction of the family comes (which, if strong, always “slaughters” the state, which was well seen in the USSR) through juvenile technology and the constant propaganda of homosexuality, the destruction of religion and the church, the destruction of education, national culture (namely, culture, and not imitations to support tourism) and the development of so-called multiculturalism.

Of course, people do not like all this, but the constant rise in the standard of living and the increased control of the special services through the development of information technologies until recently allowed them to keep the situation under control. And here, quite inappropriately, the terrible happened - the beginning of the “acute” stage of the crisis caused a drop in the standard of living of the “middle” class. Of course, the process has just begun, but already what happened has shown the modern “Western” elite its position in jeopardy. All the accumulated technologies of managing the society began to falter.

One thing is to control a small percentage of the disgruntled, another is mass action. And here, of course, the elites rallied. They were united by their understanding that it is impossible to allow uncontrolled development of events. Not for long and the power to lose. So, it is necessary at any cost to force the still existing “middle” class to rally around the elite. More precisely, around the state, which this elite so far controls. It is necessary that people be afraid of something more than the loss of money. And since the fear of threatening poverty is very strong, you can’t overdo it with ordinary fear. Horror is needed.

For this reason, I was sure that soon something should be expected that would horrify people. And such an event really happened. I'm talking about the massacre in Norway, organized by Breivik. The mass murder was so stunned by all that the majority did not notice a considerable amount of oddities and exaggerations accompanying the official version of events. Nevertheless, the terrorist act ideally meets the goals of the elite. The press strongly emphasizes the traditionalist beliefs of the mass murderer. The horror was bound to come from the traditional society — the “middle” class should be pushed into the arms of the liberal state and liberal elites, and not towards traditional values. Therefore, the media controlled by the elite are silent about the group rape of schoolgirls in Norway by people from southern countries, although they happen more and more often. Therefore, the media do not talk about the growth of drug addiction and the decline in the birth rate - they have other tasks. But the massacre committed by a man who, ostensibly (we still do not know the truth today), supports traditional values ​​- this is exactly what the elite and the authorities need.

It is difficult to say whether similar actions will be taken in the future, but, in any case, the goal of the modern “Western” elite will not succeed - the economic decline will be too strong. However, the elite do not believe in it yet. But what she will be able to do is to arrange a massive inter-ethnic conflict that will dramatically strengthen traditional values ​​in society. Unfortunately, this will happen through a very strong exacerbation of the situation, comparable to our civil war. And the main question that today is worth asking: can society in European countries understand who was the real customer of the bloodshed on the island of Uteya? Or will never understand? In the end, education and culture are destroyed for a reason, and with deep meaning.

Return of the “Red” project

How will the situation go on? New prophets are not yet visible, so you have to choose from existing projects. Since the upcoming economic crisis will sharply lower the standard of living in all Western countries (which is now significantly overestimated due to the overconsumption phenomenon associated with the dollar emission), the concepts of "profit" will largely be replaced by "justice." And this means a renaissance of the “Red” project and an even greater strengthening of the Islamic project. What will happen in the United States, the author does not undertake to predict, and in Europe there will be only one question: can the socialist idea assimilate the Islamic population or will Europe enter the Islamic world? We note that so far Islam has been assimilated only within the framework of the development of socialist ideas, in connection with which I believe that it is in Europe that the “Red” project expects a powerful expansion.

The Renaissance of purely Christian projects (“Byzantine” in the form of Orthodoxy and “Catholic”) cannot be expected in the near future. The fact is that such a powerful crisis, as the collapse of the world system of division of labor, the collapse of a single dollar space, will require active, if not aggressive actions from all participants. The policy of “Christian” projects is essentially determined by their dogma, which calls humility as one of its main virtues. In other words, the revival of these projects is possible, but not in the medium term, and certainly not in the short term. This will take a very long time.

There is one more reason why the “Red” project should acquire special significance in the near future. I have already said that the loan interest allowed in the 16th century created a new phenomenon in the history of mankind - “technological society”. The accelerated technical progress of the last centuries, which, in particular, sharply reduced mortality and allowed a significant increase in the number of humanity, is caused precisely by this phenomenon. It is possible that the prerequisite for this phenomenon is the simultaneous presence of loan interest and the biblical value system. Even Japan and China, in general, develop their technologies only at the expense of Western countries - investors and consumers of their products. There is nothing to say about Islam - all attempts to create a technological civilization on the internal base of the Islamic peoples were unsuccessful.

At the same time, mankind is not ready to abandon technological advances. And all the more important is that there was one exception to this rather rigid rule. I already spoke about it above, but it is worth repeating. Technological civilization was built in the USSR - a country in which the lending rate was prohibited no less, if not more strictly than in Islamic countries. This unique experience of the “Red” project cannot but be in demand, since, most likely, the upcoming crisis of the Unified measure of value will cause at least a temporary refusal to use loan interest. This is due to the fact that the destruction of a single emission dollar space will, most likely, occur gradually. At the first stage, with high probability, the world will be divided into several emission currency areas: the US dollar (which, apparently, sooner or later will not be a private office, but the federal treasury), the euro and the yuan.

It is possible that there will be two more zones: the so-called “golden dinar” and the Russian ruble. In fact, the latter is absolutely necessary for the preservation of Russia as a single state. True, with the current leadership of our economy, it is rather unlikely.

If we consider that the markets must be global, such a system will obviously be less profitable and, most likely, will continue to collapse. As a result, individual states, in order to protect their sovereignties, will begin to harsher and tougher restrictions on the rights of individual private actors to take profits. This, in the end, will almost inevitably lead to a legislative or even ideological ban on the private use of loan interest.

Returning to the main topic, it can be noted that in Europe over the coming decades, a powerful expansion of the “Islamic” project will meet three serious resistances. The first is from the side of the dying “Western” project. The fight will be ruthless and uncompromising. The second is on the part of national states united within the framework of the European Union. Here, the pressure of the “Islamic” global project will be weaker, since national projects, by definition, are not able to withstand the global project for a long time. The third subject of resistance will be a resurgent “Red” project, and here the relationship will be very complicated. On the one hand, the “Red” project can assimilate the Islamic population of Europe (as was done in the USSR), and in this sense it represents the main danger for the “Islamic” project. On the other hand, some of its features must be maximally supported, since it is they who will have to ensure the preservation of the technological civilization in Europe. As a result of these processes, most likely, a new global project will emerge in Europe, a kind of symbiosis of Islam and socialism, which can be called “Islamic socialism” conditionally.

The situation in Russia will be different from the European one only: much more developed principles and mechanisms of the “Red” project. And this bears a huge threat to the “Western” project, since the above-described variants of the development of events in Europe can be realized much faster in Russia and thus seriously accelerate the final disintegration of the “Western” global project.

It is no coincidence that the “Western” project threw considerable forces on the urgent destruction of the relics of the “Red” project in Russia: its hired managers began aggressively pushing Russia's immediate accession to the WTO, destroying the state pension system, health care, and education. The meaning of these actions is clear. Russia for a millennium was an exclusively project country and simply cannot exist without a great idea. The destruction of the “Red” project for the first time in history left it in an ideological vacuum: no project values ​​for Russia are visible yet. We, frankly, failed to impute the values ​​of the “Western” project to our peoples. However, Russia still has some defense-technical and educational potential, and the “western” designers do not want to allow any other global project to seize this territory. Therefore, it is necessary to turn it into a desert inhabited by aggressive and non-constructive tribes. As long as the “Western” project was “one and indivisible,” Russia could be fought at the technological level. But now, when he reeled, tougher and more drastic measures are required. What we observe in practice.

Theoretically, after the collapse of the “Western” project, another development path is possible. This rejection of the remaining biblical tenets. However, in this case it is necessary to formulate a new dogma of a project scale.

Be that as it may, the inevitable collapse of the “Western” project will lead to a complex process of struggle between already existing global projects in an attempt to increase their influence or simply to be reborn. The main ones, apparently, at the first stage will be two: Islamic and “Red”. The first is by virtue of its apparent power today, the second as a guarantor of the preservation of “technological civilization”. And if Russia wants to play at least some role in the world in the coming decades, or simply to preserve itself as a state, it is vital for us to reanimate the mechanisms and technologies left over from the times of socialism and try to create a new Russian project ideology.

Who will find a way out of the ideological impasse?

Thus, the current situation provides us with absolutely unique opportunities. Why us?

The fact is that Western society is strictly totalitarian. Any attempts to do something not approved by the official ideology are relentlessly pursued. The punishments, however, are milder than those used in the USSR. People just close career opportunities. Even if the student begins in his reasoning and statements to contradict the fundamental dogmas, then we can safely say that he will never be able to get a good education. At the same time, there are various kinds of institutions and mechanisms designed to control the situation in such a way as not to lead it to a dead end - with a critical development of the situation, prohibitions on freedom of thought are lifted. This mechanism has acted repeatedly over several centuries.

The last time it was launched recently was when Francis Fukuyama, known to have written the book “The End of History” twenty years ago, published an article titled “The Future of History” in the first issue of Foreign Affairs magazine for 2012 year. I will briefly retell this significant text in my own words.

We have stumbled into an ideological impasse, writes Fukuyama. - Modern capitalism is dying before our eyes, and for this reason we need the new ideology. We cannot compose it on the old foundation because we are held back by too many prohibitions. However, let us give ourselves an account of the fact that these prohibitions appeared as a result of a confrontation with the USSR and in general with the “Red” project. This project is no longer there, and therefore we can lift all prohibitions and give freedom to creativity, to the people. Let, they say, the people will compose us a new capitalist ideology. He even draws a funny picture: “Imagine for an instant an unknown writer who, huddling somewhere in the attic, is trying to formulate an ideology of the future that can provide a realistic path to peace with a healthy middle-class society and a solid democracy.” However, Fukuyama immediately warns: there are four points that can never be discarded. These are private property, freedom, democracy, and the “middle” class.

It is clear why the “middle” class, which generally has nothing to do with philosophical concepts, has got into this list. It is he, the “middle” class, in fact, who demands the availability of private property, freedom and democracy. The poor have nothing to do with these benefits - they are neither hot nor cold from them. But rich people do not need freedom and democracy, because they can protect their property on their own. Thus, the “middle” class becomes a very important link.

So, the West has openly declared that it is announcing a competition for a new ideology. And here we are confronted with a completely curious thing. The worldview, philosophy, carefully developed and repeatedly rewritten history of the West were created in the last hundred years in the struggle against communist ideology, one of the key elements of which is the thesis about the end of capitalism. Accordingly, in the Western model, in liberal philosophy and other constructions, capitalism is fundamentally infinite. For this reason, the new philosophy that Fukuyama proposes to develop, if it is developed, will only be a renewal of capitalism.

Is such an update possible?

Let's see where in the communist ideology the thesis about the end of capitalism comes from? We are accustomed to think that Karl Marx invented it and that it naturally follows from the Marxian theory of changing formations. But then another question arises: why did Marx decide to study the theory of the change of formations? And the thing is this. Marx as a scientist - not as an ideologue and propagandist, but as a scientist - a political economist. Political economy as a science appeared at the end of the 18th century, and Adam Smith developed it, then David Ricardo picked it up, and Marx, in a sense, was a successor to their tradition. So, the thesis about the end of capitalism appeared in Adam Smith, and it is possible that Marx took up the concept of changing formations, because he understood that capitalism was finite. He was interested to find out what the post-capitalist society would be.

According to Adam Smith, the level of division of labor in a particular society is determined by the scale of that society, that is, the market. The larger the market, the deeper the division of labor can be. (Let me explain this thesis, which is called “on the fingers.” Suppose there is a village in which there are a hundred courtyards. So, at least die, but building locomotives is impossible there. Not that scale.) Since the time of Smith, this thesis has received a lot of evidence and a rather simple consequence follows from it - from a certain moment, from a certain level of division of labor, further division can occur only by expanding the market.

And nowadays the world has entered a situation that Adam Smith and even Marx described as abstract, purely hypothetical. Today it has become quite specific. Market expansion is no longer possible. Consequently, it is impossible to further deepen the division of labor within the framework of the existing model of the economy. Of course, you can try to do it in a separate industry, but not in the economy as a whole. Will not work. Hence the conclusion - modern capitalism is over. The current crisis is the crisis of the end of capitalism. He no longer has a development resource. The world cannot develop further in the grip of capitalist ideology.

From the point of view of humanity, this is not the greatest misfortune. Only in Europe and in the last two thousand years at least two basic models of economic development have changed, as I have already mentioned above. Nothing prevents another shift from happening.

Therefore, it seems to me that today the key point is the search for a new development mechanism and a new language in which this development can be described. Whoever does this will become a civilization champion for the next two to three hundred years. From all the above, it is clear that this can be done only outside the western world. And I cannot find a country on the map, except for Russia, where a new idea could be born.


1 Stagflation - inflation, accompanied by stagnation or decline in production, high unemployment.
Author:
Originator:
http://magazines.russ.ru/
72 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, regularly additional information about the special operation in Ukraine, a large amount of information, videos, something that does not fall on the site: https://t.me/topwar_official

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. Fox
    Fox 2 August 2012 06: 58
    -23
    so many letters, and nothing! Medvedev’s speech to the campaign.
    1. Atia
      Atia 2 August 2012 09: 53
      +17
      But the markets have really run out and there will be no new ones.
    2. zardoz
      zardoz 3 August 2012 02: 02
      +1
      No, well, the fact that you did not understand this set of letters does not mean at all that they are "nothing" :)
  2. Vasily79
    Vasily79 2 August 2012 07: 03
    -12
    Thank youOOOOOO Brief course on the history of economic studies, zadolbali at the university, although it explains some of the actions of the authorities.
    1. aksakal
      aksakal 2 August 2012 11: 51
      +11
      Quote: Vasily79
      Thank youOOOOOO Brief course on the history of economic studies, zadolbali at the university, although it explains some of the actions of the authorities.
      - in fact, for this you are taught this subject in universities, so that you have a tool for analysis and an objective vision of what is happening. You took this course for show, got a credit, forgot it and don't use it in any way. As a result, we get such explanations of the events on the sites. that takes a shock. "The USSR - collapsed - Gorbachev is to blame." Moreover, it is written by people who have received a higher education and have attended a similar course of lectures. No wonder when opponents on this site from the Promised Land begin to argue that 95% of local members of the forum are not of that mental level.
      So answer the question - did you take such a course at the university, read this article, grimaced, but how and with what tools are you going to make an analysis and draw conclusions?
      1. Vasily79
        Vasily79 2 August 2012 20: 11
        -2
        Conclusions are made on the basis of something and for some purpose you are probably better off making a conclusion or What did you mean there. The analysis from the description and the advancement of theories of accomplished historical events gives a small idea of ​​the future, and your future depends on that path and the theory of development you have chosen, and there are plenty of tools. Any story (econ. Gender. Military, etc.) only warns against errors. Listen to this one and pass it another. This article lays out one-sided history of economic events, and there are still a lot of theories presented here as global development projects and dying. And do not hell with the author to interfere with macro processes micro.
      2. alexng
        alexng 2 August 2012 20: 23
        0
        It is from such listeners that specialists are obtained "sly", mostly "whiners", there is no better "whiners". I am glad that there are literate people on the forum, and they see all the complexity of the issues of economics and the formation of production after the complete collapse of all technological cooperation in 91, followed by squandering during the 90s, during the rule of liberals. So it turns out that "the beaten is not beaten lucky."
      3. 11Goor11
        11Goor11 2 August 2012 22: 11
        +1
        aksakal
        As a result, we get such explanations of the events on the sites. that takes a shock. "USSR - collapsed - Gorbachev is to blame"

        Dear Aksakal, do you hold the view that the influence of the personality of a leader on social events is possible only at the very minimum?
  3. Magadan
    Magadan 2 August 2012 07: 31
    +9
    All smart, philosophize. Various theories prove, they say that a market economy is the most correct!
    I have one stupid question - if the market economy is good, then why is there a "crisis of overproduction"? In Africa, they are starving, and not only in Africa, but marketers say there is a problem with sales . And because of this war!
    I understand that again money-goods will start here - money and other crap to push. Yes, only the question remains open - in Africa (and not only) they are starving and there are no clothes. Mankind knows how to rivet this food and clothes in large quantities. Yes, that's just a wonderful market economy with its banks and exchanges, for some reason it does not allow the people of the Earth to get this food and ojeda, but it produces poor and super-rich.
    You have a shitty "science" -economics, gentlemen. she is no science at all. A set of someone's speculation, insanity and theories.
    1. wall
      wall 2 August 2012 09: 34
      +14
      In fact, everything is simple. All crises, inconsistencies and wars come from the fact that 1% of the world's population simply does not want to share with the rest. For some reason, they consider themselves better than other people. Yes. They know how to make money. Money is their god. The more money they have, the closer they are to their god - the golden calf. Read the life stories of the richest people on the planet (preferably from unofficial, propaganda media) - the main character trait of these people is to go to the end, achieve their goal regardless of means and sacrifices and get EVERYTHING as a result. Those. the main character trait of this type of people - I must have EVERYTHING. I will tear everyone. THIS will be mine! What system do you think they should have built and securely covered (ideologically !!!) from all sides?
      1. recitatorus
        recitatorus 2 August 2012 11: 33
        +17
        In my opinion, the reincarnation of the red project awaits us! Capitalism, especially wild, was already somehow withered! People are getting wild from him.
        1. DEMENTIY
          DEMENTIY 2 August 2012 12: 06
          +10
          And I can’t find the country on the map, except for Russia, where a new idea could be born.

          My applause to the author turning into a storm of applause, I get up and put a plus good .
          1. REPA1963
            REPA1963 2 August 2012 23: 41
            +1
            This is not democracy, this is not "the rule of the people", but the power of a small handful of speculators.
        2. alexng
          alexng 2 August 2012 22: 54
          -2
          Quote: recitatorus
          In my opinion, the reincarnation of the red project awaits us!

          Just please in the territory of America. Enough of these experiments with us - have suffered.
          1. alexng
            alexng 3 August 2012 23: 45
            0
            The “Islamic Civil Charter” marched in the same column with the Communists. Prior to this, in December in Moscow. The Khizbutites are willing to make contact not only with the radicals, but also with our domestic opposition.
            http://warfiles.ru/show-10827-poslednyaya-osen-islamisty-gotovyatsya-k-protestam
            -v-alyanse-s-beloy-lentoy.html

            Do you still believe that revolution is good?
      2. revnagan
        revnagan 2 August 2012 12: 58
        +8
        Quote: wall
        Yes. They know how to make money.

        No, I, you, and most of the site visitors make money. And THEY just make money out of money. For us, our health. They created a system "for themselves", and this system works, allowing them to make more and more money.
    2. Kaa
      Kaa 2 August 2012 09: 51
      +8
      Quote: Magadan
      in Africa (and not only) they are starving and there are no clothes. Mankind knows how to rivet this food and clothes in large quantities. Yes, that's just a wonderful market economy with its banks and exchanges, for some reason it does not allow the people of the Earth to get this food and ojeda, but it produces poor and super-rich.

      Starving, you say, a colleague? And what to ride: "The USDA and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory conducted a study of alternative fuels. It showed that the most competitive type is biodiesel based on raw materials of animal origin," RBC daily reports.
      Some time ago, Thai scientist Kasetsart Naratit Noimai developed a technology that allows the production of diesel fuel from chicken, beef or pork fat. " from Tyson Foods mills was supplied mainly to manufacturers of cosmetics, soap and pet food, now 60% of fat will go to ConocoPhillips factories. It is assumed that ordinary diesel fuel will be diluted with biofuel by 5-35% at gas stations http: //alt-energy.org .ua / 2009/05/16 / samym-perspektivnym-toplivom-v-ssha-naz

      vali-zhivotnyj-zhir /
      The government (USA) announced on March 9 that about 5 billion bushels (corn) this year will go to fuel production - this volume is second only to last year's record. Such estimates are based on the assumption that a single bushel produces 2,7 gallons of fuel, says Jerry Norton, chairman of the USDA Grains Assessment Committee.
      Green Plains Renewable Energy Corporation (GPRE, Omaha), the fourth largest ethanol producer in the United States, claims that it can produce 2,8 gallons of fuel from 1 bushel. Such a difference in estimates indicates fluctuations in the level of cereal demand for fuel production at refineries in the range of 150 to 200 million bushels per year, says Norton.http: //cfts.org.ua/articles/43224
      How many Africans can you feed these fats and corn if you skate a little less? Here is the theory of the "golden billion" in action ...
      1. recitatorus
        recitatorus 2 August 2012 11: 31
        +13
        Quote: Kaa
        And how many Africans can be fed with these fats and corn

        Just feed the Africans a double-edged sword, there will be even more of them, the birth rate there is prohibitive. We must occupy them with productive labor so that they can feed themselves.
        1. Kaa
          Kaa 2 August 2012 11: 48
          +7
          Quote: recitatorus
          It is necessary to occupy them with productive labor so that they can feed themselves.

          I agree, colleague, you can feed 5 fish, or you can explain how the hook works. And then they got used to the fact that "a magician suddenly arrives in blue helicopter, and for free .... "It is a pity, humanly, for these people, but" world ssoobstvo "does nothing in this regard, world neo-colonialism for the sake of the" golden billion ", by the way, we are not on this list.
        2. NUT
          NUT 2 August 2012 12: 26
          +8
          Quote: recitatorus
          . It is necessary to occupy them with productive labor so that they can feed themselves.
          Wisely!
          Oh, and we love this thing:
          Quote: recitatorus
          Just feed the Africans

          ",,, We are Russians, we are with infidelity,
          Breaking brotherly meager loaf
          And in gratitude we hear above ourselves
          Just two words: "We must" and "Come on!" ... "
          Evgeny Skvoreshnev
          1. Concept1
            Concept1 2 August 2012 13: 06
            +1
            How true that is noticed !!!
        3. revnagan
          revnagan 2 August 2012 13: 03
          +2
          Quote: recitatorus
          Just feed the Africans a double-edged sword, there will be even more of them, the birth rate there is prohibitive. We must occupy them with productive labor so that they can feed themselves.

          It is true, and there is only one way out. And the "red project" offers this way out, taken in turn from Christianity. It sounds like this - "who does not work, he does not eat"! But if a person works, then he should "eat" normally ( in the broadest sense).
    3. aksakal
      aksakal 2 August 2012 12: 00
      +6
      Quote: Magadan
      All smart, philosophize. Various theories prove, they say that a market economy is the most correct!
      - No, here Khazin claims that a revival or reincarnation of the socialist model of development awaits us (for some reason he called it the global red project).
      It has long been written that we need to create a base with the dogmas of the liberals with their debunking.
      We have already refuted many dogmas. For example, such - that the so-called legitimate government, that is, chosen as it were in fair elections (and what happens?), It does not occur to anyone to overthrow. There was still some dogma.
      And here is the dogma - the state is a bad manager, only a private trader can be a good manager. On the example of Almaty, all Almaty residents were convinced that this was not so. At zero, the entire energy infrastructure of Almaty, consolidated in the agro-industrial complex (Almaty Power Consolidated) was given to the Belgian chat company Traktebel. A huge company, but here they broke firewood and left the Kazakhstan market with shame. Now the agricultural sector has been returned to the akimat of the city. There is a large-scale modernization of the networks - any Almaty citizen will confirm - the half-cities are dug up, heaped up pre-insulated pipes are installed. And this is with minimal tariff increases, only for inflation. Here is the state - a bad manager.
      In general, we look forward to reincarnation!
    4. revnagan
      revnagan 2 August 2012 12: 54
      +6
      Quote: Magadan
      Mankind knows how to rivet this food and clothes in large quantities. Yes, that's just a wonderful market economy with its banks and exchanges, for some reason it does not allow the people of the Earth to get this food and ojeda, but it produces poor and super-rich.

      And you forgot about profit. All this (food, clothes, medicine) is done not for the sake of people, as in the USSR, but for the sake of PROFIT. I was also interested in this question, it seems that there is enough on Earth, everyone should have enough for a piece of bread and a glass milk. but come on, in the 21st century, people die of hunger. Diseases that can already be treated kill children. Not because there is no cure, there is it, and it heals effectively, but it costs so much that BUY it simple working people don’t can. And those who have this money are simply not interested in saving the life of someone else's child, this will not bring them profit.
      In general, I began to understand something after I read S. Kara-Murza's book "History of the Soviet State." Yes, this is not an exciting fiction that is read in one breath, and the second time I probably will not master it entirely, but there are given answers to many questions, including the question why under capitalism it is necessary to destroy food, even if it is insanely sorry for starving children. This is how the "human" face of real capitalism is revealed.
    5. Evil Tatar
      Evil Tatar 2 August 2012 13: 16
      +1
      Quote: Magadan
      Yes, that's just a wonderful market economy with its banks and exchanges, for some reason it does not allow the people of the Earth to get this food and ojeda, but it produces poor and super-rich.

      Quote: Magadan
      You have a shitty "science" - economics, gentlemen. And it is not a science at all. And a set of someone's speculations, insanity and theories.

      In vain you are so ...
      There is simply nothing to take in Africa, acre of Sahara sand and diamonds from South Africa (and how much will it be?), So naked and hungry blacks with Papuans walk around, suffer from tropical and venereal diseases all year round ... Go and heal them all and feed them for free ... Nobody needs sand, the sheikhs are washing them with technology from the bottom of the sea - they are building islands ...
      But it’s cool to the north and the life seems to be harsher, but the illnesses are not the same, and there will be more wealth, only little hands grab a bit at once ...
      Yes, and what are we doing? Not really going to share this?
      1. Kaa
        Kaa 2 August 2012 13: 44
        +5
        Quote: Angry Tatar
        Yes, and what are we doing? Not really going to share this?

        And they’ll organize themselves to help like this:
    6. Ascetic
      Ascetic 2 August 2012 15: 42
      +16
      Quote: Magadan
      You have a shitty "science" - economics, gentlemen. And it is not a science at all. And a set of someone's speculations, insanity and theories.


      Not mine, but liked it! Already laid out a post but I repeat it painfully in the subject
      Not in the eyebrow but in the eye is the characteristic of the modern speculative economy. This "economy" will again bring humanity to the next world massacre, which for you and me, as always, will begin suddenly and unexpectedly. I think so..
      Suppose we - I, you and the Chronoscopist flew by plane across the Pacific Ocean. On the way, the three of us ate absinthe, nadeboshirili, broke the door off the toilet, and for this we were thrown into the sea through an emergency exit. Fortunately, a small nameless Polynesian island was discovered near the place of our fall. When we got ashore, we conferred and decided to consider it a new state called the United States of Absinthe (USA).
      When we were thrown out of the plane, we, of course, were not given luggage. Therefore, all the tangible and intangible assets we have - only the toilet door, which you still brought with you. And in general, despite the absinthe, you turned out to be the most resourceful with us - in your wallet, quite by accident, a banknote of $ 100 was found. Thus, in our USA there are non-financial assets - the door, and financial assets, they are money supply - $ 100. These are all our savings. Since we don’t have anything else at all, we can say so - we have one tangible asset - a door secured by a money supply of $ 100. Those. our door costs $ 100.
      Having sober up a little, we decide that we need to settle down somehow. The fastest of us was the Chronoscopist. He immediately announced that he was creating a bank and was ready to take the money savings of the population into growth at 3% per annum - well, a person does not sit idle. You give him $ 100, and he writes them down in a notebook in the article "Liabilities -> Dipasites". But I, too, didn’t slurp soup with bast shoes - I shouldn’t have spent so much time investigating economic cheating - I know how to confiscate the door and $ 100 from you. I suggest you take your $ 100 in growth at 5% per annum. I tear out a leaf from my notebook and write on it - "Ablegation for $ 100 at 5% per annum." You feel that you are flooded. You take the money from the frustrated Chronoscopist from the dipasite and give it to me in exchange for my ablegation. I take your $ 100 and deposit it in the back of the happy Chronoscopist's bank.
      On the good side, one could calm down and go do everything - shake a palm tree or dive for clams, gain daily bread, so to speak. But you know - I'm an indefatigable financial genius, such trifles as coconuts and oysters do not interest me. Climbing around our island - 50 steps from the south coast to the north, and 30 from west to east, I come up with a brilliant combination. I come to you and suggest from scratch to earn another 1% per annum. Take a loan at the Chronoscopist’s bank at 4%, and buy from me one more bond at 5%. I immediately write out the second abstraction for $ 100 on a notepad, and wave it in front of your nose. Without thinking twice, you run to the bank and take a loan of $ 100 against the security of my first abstraction for $ 100. They are there - I put them there on dipazit. You give me the borrowed $ 100 and hide the second abstraction in your wallet - now you have my $ 200 ablations. And I put $ 100 in the bank - now I have $ 200 there in dipazit. The chronoscopist is already jumping for joy - the credit business popper.
      Do you think I will stop there? Yeah, now - I already wrote you a third ablation. Running to the bank for a loan secured by a second ablation. Toward evening, having run into the island with this hundred bucks and tearing all the leaves from a notebook on ablation, we have the following picture. You have $ 5000 of my ablations, and I have $ 5000 of dipazits in the bank. Now, I feel it is time to put your door in your hands. I suggest buying it from you for $ 100. But you are misbehaving - there is only one door, and you break the price of $ 1000. Well, $ 1000 so $ 1000 - in the end I have as much as $ 5000 on deposit. I send the payment order to the Chronoscopist on the last notepad, transfer $ 1000 from my dipazit to yours, and pick up your door.
      If we give our bookkeeping to an American economist with a Harvard diploma, he will inform us that our USA has $ 1000 of tangible assets in the form of a door, and $ 10000 of financial assets in the form of abbreviations and dipazits. Those. that the value of our total property has increased 110 times a day. A less subtle and educated person would say that we are three morons, we just had one door and $ 100 remained, and that only finished morons could tear leaflets from a notebook all day, instead of picking coconuts. Which of them is right - decide for yourself.
      1. Irkit
        Irkit 2 August 2012 17: 05
        +1
        It's funny :) but I’ll leave the drigim to decide
        1. Tomato
          Tomato 2 August 2012 17: 48
          +1
          Quote: Tomat
          The whole world involved in the Western project, stupid people

          Ridiculous: "stupid people". Oh, this site's political correctness does not allow us to call a spade a spade.
          I wrote DEBILA, and in fact it is, because the Western capitalist economy is bursting at the seams.
      2. Tomato
        Tomato 2 August 2012 17: 44
        +4
        Quote: Ascetic
        A less subtle and educated person would say that we are three morons, we just had one door and $ 100 remained, and that only finished morons could tear leaflets from a notebook all day, instead of picking coconuts.

        The whole world involved in the Western project, stupid people
        But in general, you have clearly demonstrated what Western economists and business leaders are doing. Thank.
      3. Kaa
        Kaa 2 August 2012 22: 42
        +3
        Quote: Ascetic
        Already laid out a post but I repeat it painfully in the subject

        Dear Ascetic, I sincerely ask you to post this post further, since the overwhelming majority of people (not stupid, with a good Soviet military and civilian education, even with an economic one) either do not understand this, or stupidly "ostrich", I judge social circle. Truth in an accessible form, like yours, should hammer people's brains thousands of times, only then the ostriches take their heads out of the asphalt +.
  4. djsa1
    djsa1 2 August 2012 07: 44
    -9
    In short blah, blah, blah, as always, excerpt from the textbook laughing
  5. zevs379
    zevs379 2 August 2012 07: 50
    +3
    Too bright and exaggerated. Generally true. In fact, everything will stretch for 30-60 years. (If without a big war)
  6. Karabin
    Karabin 2 August 2012 07: 55
    +4
    The red or leftist project will replace the antipower venal - thieves' bacchanalia that is currently taking place in Russia. It is a matter of time and the emergence of a strong leftist leader. There is simply no other way for Russia, otherwise the collapse of the principalities and civil strife. Putin, having taken a position expressing the interests of big business, missed his historic chance to become a real savior of the Fatherland. Earlier in the comments I wrote, I repeat, if Putin, as undoubtedly strong, and in modern realities, perhaps the only political leader in the country, headed the "left (red) project, it would be a great blessing for Russia. But he chose the other side , if according to Khazin, a "western" project.
    1. Concept1
      Concept1 2 August 2012 10: 13
      0
      Putin did not choose any Western project foreign to the absolute majority of the country!
      Russia no longer has human resources to experiment. And he understands this like no one else! This time to make the country different you need to manage without a civil war. Without sudden movements, without cries and tantrums! Not weakening her for another 20 years! Because otherwise we will simply be torn!
      1. Tomato
        Tomato 2 August 2012 17: 53
        +2
        Quote: concept1
        This time to make the country different you need to manage without a civil war. Without sudden movements, without cries and tantrums!

        If the looting of Russia according to Western patterns continues, then one cannot do without great upheavals (civil war).
        1. Concept1
          Concept1 2 August 2012 18: 33
          0
          Civil war is like death to us! The enemies only need this !!!!!!!
    2. Evil Tatar
      Evil Tatar 2 August 2012 13: 31
      +1
      Quote: Karabin
      if Putin, as undoubtedly strong, and in modern realities, perhaps the only political leader in the country, headed the "left (red) project, it would be a great blessing for Russia

      Duck, he would have headed, so who would give him? Found to see the hook that they hold ...
      1. megatherion
        megatherion 3 August 2012 03: 10
        0
        This hook is the Central Bank of Russia, which does not obey Russian law and indirectly pays tribute to the United States. And if the national currency does not work for the good of the country, there can be no question of any independence.
    3. 11Goor11
      11Goor11 2 August 2012 21: 22
      +1
      Karabin
      Putin, taking a position expressing the interests of big capital, missed his historic chance to become the real savior of the Fatherland.

      In another way, it was simply impossible to do at least something. They just wouldn’t give it.
      But, to say that everything is done only for the sake of the "three fat men", because it is also impossible.
      And all the information in the media about the need for the reincarnation of socialism is the preparation of public consciousness.
  7. Zlaya kotleta
    Zlaya kotleta 2 August 2012 08: 19
    0
    The article caused a clear sense of deja vu: everything was still a year ago, said Kurginyan. In the same terminology, by the way ...
    1. Vitaly PV
      Vitaly PV 3 August 2012 01: 39
      0
      no such comparisons are needed, I listen to the programs with equal interest and read articles from both Kurginyan and Khazin.
      ps and the article really liked
  8. Straus_zloy
    Straus_zloy 2 August 2012 08: 47
    +1
    Leaders of the country came to the conclusion that the USSR was not in a position to control almost half of the world, sliding towards totalitarianism, rampant terrorism and anarchy, and at the same time limit the growing possibilities of China.

    unrelated things, the refusal to control additional territories did not add anything to the possibility of "limiting" the growing China, which by that time could already be "limited" only by war
  9. IRBIS
    IRBIS 2 August 2012 09: 17
    +7
    But grandfather Marx was far from being. And it was not for nothing that during the crisis his "Capital" became the most read book in certain circles. The fact that our demagogues, during the collapse of the USSR, dismissed them as "unnecessary communist chatter" is taking place.
    1. Tomato
      Tomato 2 August 2012 17: 56
      +2
      Quote: IRBIS
      But grandfather Marx was far from being. And it was not for nothing that during the crisis his "Capital" became the most read book in certain circles. The fact that our demagogues, during the collapse of the USSR, dismissed as "unnecessary communist chatter" is taking place

      So grandfather Geigel was also right in formulating the philosophical laws of the development of society. Once again I am convinced that they work.
  10. prispek
    prispek 2 August 2012 09: 39
    +6
    Health and good mood to all those present.
    Excellent article!
    The answer to almost all socio-political, social, national and economic issues and problems that are discussed at the forum.
    You only need to carefully read and understand what is written. Thanks to the author and respect.
    To everyone who did not understand, the advice is to humble pride, temporarily abandon their own beliefs and dogmas, and re-read slowly and carefully again. Ponder what has been read and relate it to what is happening in the world and in Russia. Perhaps your beliefs and dogmas are wrong and / or out of date.
    With hope for understanding and respect ...
  11. dmb
    dmb 2 August 2012 10: 42
    +3
    Very interesting article. There is a lot of controversy in it, and it is certainly not for those who prefer to read War and Peace in comics. One thing is important in it - an attempt to think about what kind of world our children and grandchildren will live in, and taking into account the fact that as a result of the scientific and technological revolution, time is, as it were, "compressed", then maybe we are. Khazin is right about one thing, the existing society represented by representatives of the authorities and the opposition (at least those who use mass media) does not give answers to these questions. They speak with little reason about whether oil prices will rise or not, whether the United States will bomb Iran or wait a little. But how the world will change as a result of the bombing, no one says. because even though you kill me, Dvorkovich is not Marx, and Putin is not Lenin
  12. Gavril
    Gavril 2 August 2012 10: 47
    +4
    The idea can be traced, of course, but where are the people who will lead the people? Do you mean those passionaries who once came to us in the form of ideological communists? How to unite the people, who are tormented by the wave of nationalism, all with all? Where to get an idea that would overshadow the idea of ​​capitalism and communism? We certainly have room to expand, but what to do with the growing population of the rest of the world? In short, it is difficult and unrealizable, the realities remain the same as before: the strong takes away from the weak. But when the Great Union is reborn, I will think a hundred times before "inviting" the countries of Europe there, let them boil in their own juice, choosing who to substitute their ..opa, a Negro or an Arab !!!
    1. Tomato
      Tomato 2 August 2012 18: 00
      +1
      Quote: Gavril
      Where to get the idea that would overshadow the idea of ​​capitalism and communism?

      And why eclipse, just rework these two ideas, cross them.
  13. Rashid
    Rashid 2 August 2012 11: 09
    +1
    That's right, but where do we get the strength for another global project? There is no strong leader in the country at the level of Stalin, we will again wait until everything is decided for us in the West.
  14. hv78yuhf
    hv78yuhf 2 August 2012 11: 46
    -1
    An amazing country - amazing people, it was necessary to steal the database from specials. of services
    and put it on the Internet, I'm just amazed. And now everyone can find out information about each of us.
    When I saw it, I got scared at http://poisksng.tk
    because everyone has access to my phone numbers, addresses, personal correspondence in social services. networks.
    You never know what idiots there are. But I already figured out and deleted my page, which I advise you to and quickly !!!
    1. NUT
      NUT 2 August 2012 12: 13
      +1
      Quote: hv78yuhf
      But I already figured it out and
      and I figured out and realized that
      Quote: hv78yuhf
      idiots are there
      who send SMS and, by their stupidity, lose the nth amount of their own money.
      "BE A FUCKER - SEND SMS" house-2
      Here
      Quote: hv78yuhf
      because everyone has access to my phone numbers, addresses, personal correspondence in social services. networks.
      Undoubtedly with us
      Quote: hv78yuhf
      Amazing country - amazing people
      But I-gouging once for such stupidity with SMS was financially punished, quickly realized and learned
      Quote: hv78yuhf
      which I advise you and quickly !!!
  15. andrey-tse
    andrey-tse 2 August 2012 11: 56
    +2
    It is necessary to accelerate the development of the Red Project, to actively unite to fight for the integrity of Russia, both physical and spiritual. True, this will lead to a decrease in individual benefits, because you have to pull not only yourself, but also Petya and Tanya, who have the American dream in their eyes. Kurginyan will not be pulled by the Red Project, which of the current politicians will be able to actually implement the red project, and not gain points on it.
  16. sxn278619
    sxn278619 2 August 2012 12: 29
    +2
    So what conclusions should a simple lay man face in the face of the global crisis?
    1-dry crackers?
    2- go to rallies? What are the slogans? Free education, medicine,
    3- get loans, buy real estate for the mother-in-law?
    As always, the main question is what to do.
    1. Alexander 1958
      Alexander 1958 2 August 2012 16: 29
      +4
      In perestroika times, such an anecdote was in use:
      What language do you need to learn? Optimists learn English, pessimists - Chinese, realists - Kalashnikov assault rifle winked
  17. serg83
    serg83 2 August 2012 12: 46
    +3
    An interesting article in which the future situation, in principle, begins to develop straight along Lenin when the bottom can not and the top do not want to. It’s interesting only why the author does not take into account such a global Western project as the creation of a world government with the destruction of several unnecessary billions of people on the planet, and also does not take into account the possible return of fascism in Europe in 50–80 years when a globally growing Islamic population can enter an active phase of conflict with the indigenous population, and here there are 2 options: either it wins and a completely Islamic Europe is formed, or it loses and it turns out to be totalitarian fascist.
  18. zevs379
    zevs379 2 August 2012 13: 16
    0
    Khazin showed his vision of the future. IMHO this is another withdrawal from the truth — I’ll explain why: - the Yids pushed the competition capitalism communism at the beginning of the 20th century and removed the foam themselves here and there. So now 2 options of Islam are proposed - the red system and again they are above the squabble.
    I see the third option - the hereditary ruling monarchy and the social economy. Like the USSR of the times 45-53gg. Why hereditary? - In order to exclude the coming into power of scum like corn maize and humpbacked Judas. Describe everything in detail for too long, so analyze the pros and cons yourself.
    1. Alexander 1958
      Alexander 1958 2 August 2012 16: 17
      +7
      Good afternoon!
      If I understand you correctly, then in your understanding the tsar is a talented statesman who cares about his subjects, and copes with all internal and external challenges .. (Like the USSR of the times 45-53gg) ... and inheriting these qualities together with the throne ... It seems to me that such a king is in every second TALE ..!, but in life ... Or can you give examples of such dynasties?
      With uv. Alexander 1958
    2. prispek
      prispek 2 August 2012 19: 52
      0
      Quote: zevs379
      I see the third option - the hereditary ruling monarchy

      Hello Victor.
      Let's say a monarchy. And how will we choose an autocrat? Or maybe he already chose himself and it remains only to ascend to the throne? Well, let's forget, it's all because of my squabble nature.
      And yet, who do you see on the throne?
    3. Karabin
      Karabin 2 August 2012 20: 09
      +2
      Quote: zevs379
      I see the third option - the hereditary ruling monarchy

      and the option with the moron heir is not considered by you?
      1. Oleg0705
        Oleg0705 2 August 2012 23: 32
        0
        Tsar president secretary general - what's the difference what they are called? They are all on the throne yes
  19. vezunchik
    vezunchik 2 August 2012 14: 37
    +5
    You see - Karl Marx is right! Formations are changing, and childbirth is always difficult ....
  20. Ustas
    Ustas 2 August 2012 14: 43
    +5
    For this reason, it is possible that the penetration of Islam into Europe will begin to take on a socialist connotation.

    Ghost communism a new project wanders around Europe.
    1. saruman
      saruman 2 August 2012 17: 32
      +1
      Quote: Ustas
      Phantom of communism new project roaming Europe


      And the European Commissioner "infection" ..
  21. basal
    basal 2 August 2012 15: 16
    0
    The article is interesting. It just seemed that Khazin created his speculative concept, and then began to try to fit the facts under it.

    What is the "Red Project"? There is the development of empires, their constant struggle for resources and territories. The Russian empire, in my opinion, de facto has existed since the time of Ivan the Terrible, that is, the subordination of Russia to the eastern Turkic peoples, which before that were themselves an empire - the Golden Horde. You can also consider the version that Russia, itself a part of the Golden Horde empire, simply took over control, that is, if the empire had a Turkic center, then it became Slavic. In favor of such a version, an argument can be made about the rapid and almost bloodless annexation of the giant territories of the Siberian khanates. Maybe there was no annexation of Siberia, but there was a simple change of leadership? Was it Horde, became Moscow?
    At the beginning of the 20th century, the autocratic system of government clearly outlived its usefulness. It was not Russia that collapsed; the autocracy system collapsed, again almost bloodlessly. Liberal democracy turned out to be unviable in Russia, having held out for six months, it was replaced by a model of governance, which I will try to call totalitarian-socialist. Here, totalitarianism does not mean hysterical cries about Stalin devouring babies, but a rigid vertical of power, a kind of collective autocracy. At the first stage, this model turned out to be very stable and viable, which allowed the empire to win all wars, both internal and external, to make a sharp leap in the development of the economy, but itself began to decay, for the same reasons as the autocracy - continuity was not ensured and renewal in management, an increasingly ossified and incapable of growth elite was formed. Now we have what we have - an empire that has lost the war (this time ideological, but no less bloody) of another empire - the United States, which has lost its vassals, territory, wealth, is slowly recovering, accumulating power. How a certain Khazin "Red Project" fits in here, I personally do not understand. Who cares to compare the Code of the Builder of Communism with biblical moral values, there are few differences.
    By the way, the "Western Project" somehow does not convince. What does Protestantism have to do with it, if usury has always been the work of the Jews? They feel great now, in contrast to Protestant churches with lesbian bishops.
    And the thesis that China pursues a policy of isolationism is very strange. They have already crushed Africa and Asia for themselves. Well, the fact that the expansion goes without a shot from the cannons on the sparrows, so then they are the Chinese, these are their methods.

    In general, my opinion is that the article is interesting, original, put a plus. But just as an unambiguous truth it is not necessary to perceive it, rather, as theses for reflection and discussion.
    1. saruman
      saruman 2 August 2012 17: 37
      +1
      Khazin is trying to analyze history as Marx, Lenin and Kautsky, and not as Gumilyov.
      Maybe someone will try to combine two different types of analysis?
      1. basal
        basal 2 August 2012 22: 23
        0
        I agree with you. I do not mean at all that Khazin is absolutely wrong. But serious doubts arise. I do not pretend to be a historian, education, and knowledge is not enough. But, you must admit, my doubts about Khazin’s theory are sufficiently substantiated. If not, justify.
  22. ShturmKGB
    ShturmKGB 2 August 2012 16: 01
    +5
    If the USSR existed until now, the golden era of socialism would begin ...
  23. KA
    KA 2 August 2012 16: 19
    0
    The article is interesting, there is something to think about. Although the point of the article is to pose a question to society, I would like to know what model of economic development the author himself proposes.

    I do not agree with the fact that it is considered that capitalism has its end, I think it is not so, it is just necessary to periodically "reboot the entire system" (crises, revolutions, wars, etc.), besides, there are means to delay it.

    The question of a new economic development model is rather complicated, I think that development (any) is based on the aspiration (motivation) of a person (s), that is, on ideology and the corresponding structure of the state (society).
    Thinking about why the USSR collapsed (its economy collapsed), the idea of ​​low human maturation does not leave me. In the Soviet Union under Stalen, due to ideology (the future of a bright future) and, frankly, coercion, the economy developed, after Stalin's death, we rolled by inertia, but constantly slowed down and reached the collapse of the USSR. Under capitalism, a different situation is stimulated by the sense of profit (the desire for personal enrichment) and the desire for power (wealth) or, more simply, make a career, it is based on the base feelings of a person and therefore works so well.
    You can argue for a very long time, but I prefer the ideology of socialism, you need to look for a middle ground between private and state property.
  24. Alexander 1958
    Alexander 1958 2 August 2012 17: 20
    +1
    Good afternoon!
    Definitely a big +!
    I want to draw the attention of members of the forum in general and Russians, in particular, to one of the bottlenecks in the "Red Project" which Khazin proposes and describes.
    This is the native country of the project. It is assumed that such a country can be primarily Russia, since only it possesses the main components of the concept of a native country - territory, resources. a large enough population, a desire to be a superpower, experience in implementing and managing the "Red Project". Not immediately, but nevertheless it was the Russians who, under the leadership of the Bolsheviks, acted as the driving force of the "Red Project" both in the territory of the Russian Empire and in other territories in the world. What do we have now? Since 1990, since the adoption of the declaration of the sovereignty of the RSFSR, de facto there is an ideology put forward by the top of the CPSU / RSFSR and supported by many ordinary Russians that it will be enough to contain parasites such as the Baltic states, Ukraine. Caucasus, etc. I could be wrong, but in my opinion Russians now live better than other republics of the former Soviet Union. In this regard, the question is - and IT (Red project) do you need? There are a lot of people at the forum who are against the idea of ​​sharing the national wealth evenly, as it was with the USSR. And they can be understood. The elite will be even more opposed. then you either need to give everything (as in 1917) or share a part with the elites of Ukraine, the Baltic states, the Caucasus, etc. - there are hardly anyone who wants to either.
    This question is addressed primarily to those forum users who support, like me, a return to socialist values. And what? Does anyone still want to build USSR 2.0?
    With uv. Alexander 1958
    1. Tomato
      Tomato 2 August 2012 18: 08
      0
      Quote: Alexander 1958
      The forum has a lot of people who are opposed to the fact that national wealth is divided equally, as it was with the USSR. And they can be understood. The elite will be even more opposed since then you need to either give everything (as in 1917

      They don’t want to give, we’ll select.
      USSR is my homeland !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      1. Alexander 1958
        Alexander 1958 2 August 2012 19: 26
        +4
        For total
        So after all, it will be necessary to take away not only from the oligarchs, but also perhaps from his beloved or from a neighbor. and they’ll whisper in your ears-What are you? Why do you need these Balts, like Kazakhs and others? What is the friendship between nations?
        In 1991, we were also told in Ukraine in leaflets on the fence and in newspapers that there were so many in Ukraine that they just fell in ... and how the referendum took place in December1991, so it went somewhere ..
  25. dmitryperm
    dmitryperm 2 August 2012 20: 04
    0
    This new idea could be the Concept of Public Safety. Parliamentary hearings on the topic "Concept of public security in Russia" were held on November 28, 1995. They were organized by the State Duma Security Committee and the faction of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia:
    http://www.kpe.ru/partiya/ustav/912-2009-08-12
    Briefly about BER:
    http://www.kpe.ru/partiinaya-pechat/specvypuski/557-2009-11-23-09-09-39
  26. mind1954
    mind1954 2 August 2012 23: 04
    +3
    If we consider the market as an economic tool, for
    the greatest possible satisfaction of creative and material
    needs of people, and not as a source of endless accumulation
    speculative and thieves' profits, the way out suggests itself.

    This is the liquidation of capital and the organization of scientific and technical
    economic international cooperation, optimal
    division of labor on a global scale! And solutions to all problems
    facing humanity on this platform!

    At least take the experience of the USSR! Yes, there was no socialism, but he was
    forced to formally act in accordance with the slogans
    under which he lived! And what did we see?
    If the US sucked out intellectual potential and
    all kinds of resources from all countries,
    then the USSR trained specialists in all areas and sent its
    specialists in these countries to organize science, industry,
    medicine, education and economics!

    Well, what do we see as a result:
    The United States sucked up, and how many leaders of different countries
    speak Russian and regret the collapse of the USSR, and not because
    he gave money without return, but because he showed another,
    the human path to the future, and not the bestial path to nowhere !!!
  27. de_monSher
    de_monSher 2 August 2012 23: 17
    +2
    God ... so many words, and about nothing ... practically. Abstract.

    They especially "smiled":

    1. Breivik, as an apologist for the protest of the "middle" class, "exposed" by certain forces (liberals, homosexuals, lesbians), as a traditionalist monster. The question was raised by Dostoevsky. And this great writer, nevertheless, tried to look into the soul of his hero, and the author of the article, like those who are judging this "Protestant", look anywhere, but in the wrong place.

    2. Passage about "southern" mass rapists, entertainers in the same Norway. Sorry - these are no longer southern ki. These freaks are completely and completely integrated into the liberal model, since for them all this goes with impunity (what is a few years in a comfortable prison, in comparison with the impossibility of moral integration into the Western project, with full legal integration?)

    3. About the Islamic type of capitalism - I'm just silent. Sorry, the noun capitalism is independent of the adjective.

    And again - words, words, words ... and the mechanisms were already predetermined in the mid-60s ... Whales, Glushkov and others like him ... sorry, slightly forgotten thinkers and practices ...
  28. balamut_x
    balamut_x 3 August 2012 03: 29
    0
    Oh and a dreamer this author laughing