.
‘Slavish feudal regime’
.
.
The modern planet has a alternatively rigid structure. At the top there are people who French philosopher and economist Jacques Attali calls neo-coppers (neonomades). They are rich people who easy change their surroundings, moving from Europe to America, from Hong Kong to Singapore. At the very bottom are the poorest people who migrate from Africa to Europe. They're mobile and they have nothing.
The mediate class and the working class are among the rich neo-combaters and the poor. These people live on land and they are the subject of exploitation and taxation collection. In Europe, their budget contributions support Africans, Arabs and Kurds. erstwhile German youth leave for fresh Zealand or Canada, they say directly: we do not want to feed abroad parasites. It is clear that the planet elite will cope with the crisis at the expense of the average part of humanity, the 1 with something to take and forbid.
Capitalism is experiencing a systemic crisis. It is not possible to solve the problems it faces – they are insoluble under this system. Capitalism is an extended system; it resolves its contradictions by bringing them beyond its own borders. Whenever the world's profit rate fell, the non-capitalist region was torn out and turned into a capitalist periphery – a region of outlets, natural materials and inexpensive labour. The profit rate began to emergence – and so until the next crisis. However, in 1991, with the demolition of the USSR and the socialist camp, i.e. the strategy region of anti-capitalism, no longer remained non-capitalist zones – capitalism is everywhere. Now there's nowhere to throw distant his problems, he's exhausted the planet.
In the West, the average layer is rather heavy damaged by neoliberal counter-revolution and as the crisis develops, it will shrink and its position will deteriorate. Another thing is that a social “food” has accumulated, mostly due to the 3rd planet robbery, which is now called “South”. Therefore, the western average layer has a certain time reserve, but historically small. Otherwise, he'll die sooner than capitalism.
As far as Russia is concerned, we do not have a mediate class, but alternatively a mediate layer as a crucial social group. She existed in the USSR, but Yeltsin destroyed her.
If 14 million people lived below the poorness threshold in 1989 in east Europe, including the European part of the USSR, then 168 million in 1996. In a UN study on poorness published at the beginning of the 21st century, this was called the largest and scariest middle-class pogrom in the 20th century. It is larger than what the "structural reforms" carried out in the 1980s at the order of the IMF in Latin America. In fact, we are talking about the global expropriation of the estates of the mediate layer, which is an integral part of the neoliberal counter-revolution of the 1980s – 2000, which began in the West with thatcherism and reaganomism, and came to us in years in the form of Yeltsinism.
We have no prospects, let alone the improvement or emergence of a crucial average layer. The social strategy of the Russian Federation works against him. The alleged creative class, the main part of which is the "office plankton", has nothing to do with either creativity or actual average layer...
I think the mediate layer revolution is alternatively impossible. Moreover, over the past 30 years, in the West, especially in Western Europe, a layer has been formed with the aid of which the authorities, both Brussels' transnational European bureaucrats and national state bureaucracy, can set up "medias". I mean the lower layers, the fresh "hazardous classes" represented by immigrants from the South and the East. There is something more possible: support by the layer of right-wing, authoritarian, nationalist regimes.
The uprising of China was initially combined with an interest in the collective West by fighting the USSR. For 10 years (1969–1979), the PRC demonstrated its readiness to play the West side against the USSR, becoming its workshop for the United States. The interest was mutual. In the 1970s, the United States plunged into a crisis. By the way, I am convinced: in that decade the USSR did not take advantage of the chance to "drop" the US, a well-fed and stupid russian elite, dormant by pro-Western advisors leaders (almost everyone will come during the perestroika!), consumed oil money and the future of the country... China was curious in the inflow of capital. This has just become 1 of the foundations of the Chinese miracle of the 1990s – 2000s.
But the U.S. did not calculate: China "brought" forward much more, and America gained a competitor. The dollar has besides been awarded a competitor, especially since there are those in the planet who would like to "leave" it and decision to, for example, the "cash basket" with the leading gold yuan. In America, even for a large part of the Anglo-American elite, light didn't coincide like a wedge...
The program of dismantling capitalism is called "three -D": deindustrialization, depopulation and deration (preservation and awareness). In fact, dismantling capitalism and neoliberal counter-revolution (1980-2010) as its first phase (the logically next phase should be the elimination of the marketplace as an institution and replacing it with a monopoly) mean trying to halt past first and then reconstruct it to the pre-capitalistic past: an industrial-hyper-industrial planet enclave surrounded by caste-slave-feudal zones. Capitalism is the balance between the monopoly and the market. The elimination of the marketplace by means of a monopoly transforms capital into power, which in the post-capitalistic world, given the function of information factors, is the power over information flows (information sphere) and psychospheres.
What the post-capitalistic planet truly will be depends on the course and results of the fight against the 21st century crisis. 1 of the main weapons in the fight for the future, to get out of the crisis, is the cognition of the world. The problem, however, is that present the structures providing cognition about the planet – investigation institutions and analytical units of intelligence services – are increasingly little appropriate to this world. Modern social sciences increasingly match late medieval scholastics; Scientists are replaced by experts – those who know more about getting smaller.
The West was able to impose on the full planet its imagination of reality, its “net” of social sciences. For example, only those nipponese who print in Anglo-Saxon magazines are quoted in Japan. Of course, there are any superb attempts to change things. For example, the 1978 book "Orientalism" by Edward Said, which can be considered a "scientific Chomeini". Unfortunately, this work is small known in the circles of national Orientalists.
Said wrote that modern orientalism is not discipline at all, but “the mastery of knowledge.” The West “orientized” the East, depriving it of its qualities. Since Alexander the large East has been interpreted as backward. East is simply a society in which there is no private property, free cities and free personality type. This means that the East is defined as a negative reflection of the West.
So the second by means of its discipline (imposed by its image of the world) does more or little the same thing as by economics. This means that in economics, the core of the capitalist strategy (West) alienates the "non-West" (capital strategy periphery) product, and with the aid of science, in this periphery alienates space and time. We are so dealing with a subtle instrument of global hegemony.
The existing classical triad of social sciences truly works only to “search only 1 social system—capitalistic, specifically its bourgeois North Atlantic core”. Therefore, current social sciences are not suitable for Russian revival and development. Unfortunately, national sciences about society are profoundly dependent on the West. We haven't found our own Said yet, destroying harmful stereotypes. Most national researchers slave to alien theories.
When I read the memoirs of Gorbachev's co-creators, all kinds of Chernyaevs, Szachnazarovs and others, I see that in their simplicity of the soul they compose with enthusiasm that they were already disappointed in Marxism-Leninism and built ideas of sociology and political discipline into their writings for general secretaries. Of course, they lie partly, but only partially. Look what's happening: russian leaders' advisers in the 1960s are building into our cognition the ideas of our main enemy! There's no specified thing as neutral knowledge. If you start looking at the planet with individual else's eyes, you'll start working on alien business. As Tacitus said, the 1 who loses his sight first loses his battle. That was precisely the situation.
Written by Andrei Fursow
SOURCE
https://dzen.ru/a/ZWD4CtyckWAkUg8M
(PZ)
more
