Forming the New Multipolar Political-Economic Philosophy--From the VK Archive

Long Read for the Holidays First published on 1 May 2023

As a respite from war and geopolitics for the Winter Celebrations, I present an essay I published at my VK not too long before I established the Gym. There’re several points that are linked to other items I published at VK that I’ll add as addendums since most readers won’t be able to access them, and they’ll make this a much longer, fuller read. Aside from those additions, I’ve left all formatting original and checked the links to ensure they work properly. All linked transcripts are in English. Little has happened to change the content, although the global situation has and perhaps made this philosophy more attractive. The text will reveal my reason for the cover photo choice, which is the same as the original. It commences:

I decided to not wait for the transcript and listened to the latest Hudson/Desai podcast, which was their last dedollarization installment and built on their previous as one would expect [Links are to both transcripts and podcasts]. Desai provided most of the discussion and I highly suggest reviewing what the previous segment said about Keynes's post-WW2 proposals since some form of them is what's going to be used in the new system. At the end of the new podcast, Hudson gets to the main underlying point and that's the need to create a new political-economic philosophy that supports the new system. That is also the main point Alastair Crooke begins to explore in his latest essay, "‘Securing Ourselves Is in Our Hands; and Defeat of the Enemy Lies in His Own Hands’":

Yet, a significant part to re-appropriating sovereignty requires the shift of Russia’s economic structure out from the grip of the ‘Anglo’ neo-liberal model, to one that provides for greater national self-sufficiency. Hence, the simple questioning of the philosophical underpinnings to the ‘Anglo’ system of politics and economics – which underlie the Rules Order – is as important, in its own way, as the Ukrainian battlefield.

Like any system, the World Order rests on philosophical principles believed to be universal, but which, in truth, are specific to a particular moment in European history.

Today, the West is not ‘what it was’. It is a fractured ideological battlespace. The Rest of World is not ‘what it was’. And today’s ideological western writhings are no longer viewed as being of primary concern to the World.

The point here, however, is about a project designed to bring change to that which has not changed. It is as much a war for global psyche as of attrition on the battlefront (though that, too, is a vital component in shifting the global zeitgeist). If a multi-polar order is to be built based on self-sufficient sovereignty, others should exit the neo-liberal economic system too (if they can). Hence the need for a major diplomatic initiative by Russia and China to build a strategic depth for a new economics.

Then, there are the tactics behind the strategy: How, apart from ‘pathfinding’ a new economics, to help states recover their sovereignty? How to break the ‘with us, or against us’ hegemonic grip? How to facilitate the mutual complementarities that can move a group of states towards a virtuous cycle of self-generating sovereignty – albeit one that is reinforced by transport corridors, and assisted through building autonomous ‘self-security’. China, for example, is building an extensive African network of high-speed trains for inter-African trade.

Currently there are six major documents issued by Russia and China beginning with the 4 Feb 2022 Joint Declaration that contain the basis for the formation of this new philosophical underpinning, while there are some thinkers like Alexander Dugin who are already trying to formulate it. I have yet to watch very much of it, but I'd think that the just completed online multipolarity conference contains some helpful ideas about such a formulation. The primary component of this new philosophy IMO has already been articulated and that's People-Centered Development which resides within the Chinese mantra of a shared future for humanity and was again repeated by Putin in his Speech to the Council of Legislators (Transcript available on my Wall) on the 28th where he linked today's philosophy with that which was present when Russia's legislature was first formed in 1906:

The first Chairman of the Duma, Sergei Andreevich Muromtsev, highly appreciated the potential of institutions of broad popular representation, believed that their main task was to strengthen people's faith "in statehood as a bulwark of their rights and a source of sincere concerns about the people's welfare", and the state as a whole, according to him, should be "the subject of the people's cause".

Indeed, many of your predecessors, the first Russian parliamentarians, fervently and sincerely defended the interests of the people, cared about the people's welfare, sought to benefit their native country, and considered it their highest duty and vocation to live and work for the Motherland.

Such patriotic ideals are important at all times, especially for us, for Russia – a country-civilization, one of the original, sovereign centers of a huge multipolar world.

The values of devotional service to people and their homeland determine the strength and stability of state power, confirm the unity and cohesion of our people, are a key, unshakable guarantee that together we will overcome any challenges, we will consistently and firmly move only forward to the planned high, big goals. [My Emphasis]

After providing a few more references to supporting the people, Putin as he prepares to end his remarks says this:

"And of course, the Parliament's primary concern should always be to improve the quality of life and incomes of people, to provide tangible, targeted support to our citizens, families with children, and people who find themselves in a difficult and difficult life situation. In general, the growth of the welfare of the people is our common primary task." [My Emphasis]

Now compare that rationale, that philosophy with what's happening within the Neoliberal part of the world where the interests of people are last.

Xi and the CPC with their Initiatives share Putin's rationale, or perhaps it should be said Putin shares China's rationale. IMO, it doesn't matter in this case which nation or personage was first (actually in reality it's very old); what matters is it's being articulated to the global audience. Hudson rightly observes at the end of the podcast that China hasn't prosthetalized its system to the world and has instead said each nation must adapt its system to its own conditions as none are the same. However, there are fundamental basics all these non-Neoliberal systems will share and that's the core philosophy of People Centered Development, for with a strong people the nation will be strong and vibrant with everyone working to advance everyone else--Win-Win ascendent over Zero-sum.

This isn't the first time I've written on this issue. My short essays about Putin's political-economy delve into his core philosophy of People Centered Development as do my reviews of Xi's speeches and Initiatives. On 5 April, I posted the following to my Wall:

IMO, the problem is Meism versus Everyoneism--the Multitude must be favored, not the Individual. I seem to recall some Vulcan philosophy: The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one. The many work to solve the needs of the many which in the process also solves the needs of the one. While bettering yourself improves your ability to help meet the needs of all; so, improving yourself improves everyone else. Within a communitarian system, self-advancement isn't done for the self but for the self and all, for the one is actually two--part of All and Itself. The lie that socialism gives loafers a free ride is just that a lie, for there are no loafers as all provide effort for all. Yes, individual's abilities vary due to many variables, but with rare exceptions all can provide effort for all and thus for themselves. Thus, the individual is subsumed within the collective but still remains an individual because my effort will differ from others precisely because I'm an individual.
Human societies were once organized along the above principles, and some continued in that manner after settled agriculture displaced most other forms of making a living. The main reason for its stable organization to become destabilized is technology, not just all the facets of agriculture but also and even more important the taming of the horse, which greatly facilitated nomadism and eventually created conflict as both allowed for the accumulation of goods to be coveted by others, which caused the advent of Greed--the greatest of all societal destabilizers.

For the world to advance beyond that greatest of all societal destabilizers and for humanity to evolve to a higher plane of existence, something like Xi's Global Civilization Initiative must be put into action. Although I made a posting related to this, few read it, which is unfortunate because its text isn't easy to find and was censored by Western BigLie Media. Xi's 15 March speech's English transcript announcing this Initiative is linked to above. Here are his two main opening paragraphs:

Polarization or common prosperity? Pure materialistic pursuit or coordinated material and cultural-ethical advancement? Draining the pond to catch the fish or creating harmony between man and nature? Zero-sum game or win-win cooperation? Copying other countries' development model or achieving independent development in light of national conditions? What kind of modernization do we need and how can we achieve it? Confronted with these questions, political parties as an important force steering and driving the modernization process are duty bound to provide answers. Here, I wish to share some of my observations.

We must put the people first and ensure modernization is people-centered. The people are the creators of history and are the strongest bedrock and force in advancing modernization. The ultimate goal of modernization is people's free and well-rounded development. For a modernization path to work and work well, it must put the people first. Modernization is not only about indicators and statistics on the paper but more about the delivery of a happy and stable life for the people. With a focus on the people's aspirations for a better life and further progress of civilization, political parties should strive to achieve material abundance, political integrity, cultural-ethical enrichment, social stability, and pleasant living environments so that modernization will better address the concerns and meet diversified needs of the people. In this way, modernization will promote the sustainable development of humanity by not only increasing the wellbeing of this generation but also protecting the rights and interest of future generations.

As you read, People Centered Development is at the heart of this Initiative and is its philosophical core. It's clear that most of the components of the new philosophy have already been spoken but remain disparate and too few have had an opportunity to digest and remark. Most importantly is the people most needing to be exposed to all this thought have been “shielded” by BigLie Media and their government's censorship of these very pragmatic yet opposing views aimed at replacing Neoliberalism and its Imperialism—the so-called Golden Billion. However, ideas flow like water and will eventually find and irrigate all open minds. For the West, a critical look into its genuine past must be done and three of Dr. Hudson's works provide that: …and forgive them their debts; The Collapse of Antiquity; and The Destiny of Civilization. The second was just published and the two parts of this interview, one and two, provide an excellent look into its contents and some of that genuine history that's been expunged for centuries. The main lesson is there's always been an alternative, but its existence has been actively suppressed for centuries by supposedly trustworthy institutions. Humans are now presented with the knowledge to overcome what's clearly an unjust and immoral order and form something much better based on principles that have long existed and now resurrected.

****End Original Essay. Supplemental content follows.****

Putin’s Speech to the Council of Legislators as translated:

Vladimir Putin: Dear colleagues, good afternoon!

The meeting of the Council of Legislators is traditionally timed to coincide with the Day of Russian Parliamentarism, which was celebrated yesterday, April 27.

I congratulate you on this holiday and would like to thank the senators and deputies, as well as all your colleagues in the regions of the Russian Federation, for their great, significant and productive work in creating a solid legislative foundation for the effective socio-economic development of our country, improving the quality of life of people, and strengthening the sovereignty and security of our state.

Many of our parliamentary traditions were laid at the beginning of the last century, during the pre-revolutionary convocations of the State Duma, which worked in the Tavrichesky Palace, as you know, since 1906.

The first Chairman of the Duma, Sergei Andreevich Muromtsev, highly appreciated the potential of institutions of broad popular representation, believed that their main task was to strengthen people's faith "in statehood as a bulwark of their rights and a source of sincere concerns about the people's welfare", and the state as a whole, according to him, should be "the subject of the people's cause".

Indeed, many of your predecessors, the first Russian parliamentarians, fervently and sincerely defended the interests of the people, cared about the people's welfare, sought to benefit their native country, and considered it their highest duty and vocation to live and work for the Motherland.

Such patriotic ideals are important at all times, especially for us, for Russia – a country-civilization, one of the original, sovereign centers of a huge multipolar world.

The values of devotional service to people and their homeland determine the strength and stability of state power, confirm the unity and cohesion of our people, are a key, unshakable guarantee that together we will overcome any challenges, we will consistently and firmly move only forward to the planned high, big goals.

Dear colleagues!

This year marks the 30th anniversary of the modern Russian Parliament – both chambers of the Federal Assembly. They were elected on the same day as the adoption of the current Constitution – December 12, 1993.

During these three decades, a vast and invaluable experience in state-building has been accumulated, and the foundations of Russian legislation as a democratic, legal, federal, and social state have been formed.

In an open, competitive and sometimes very tough struggle, our multi-party system has also grown and strengthened. The leading political forces have proved their thoroughness and maturity.

At the same time, the parliamentary status, the very right to be representatives of millions of Russian citizens, must, of course, be confirmed constantly, every day by hard, honest work. The main thing here is people's trust, their opinion, their suggestions and instructions in the broadest sense of the word.

It is important that both during the elections and in your daily work, the most pressing and acute issues, problems of concern to our citizens, priority needs and tasks for the development of the national economy, strengthening the country's security should be given absolute priority. This is the case today, and it should always be so.

In the parliamentary agenda of the past and current year, the most important, central place was occupied by the issues of ensuring a special military operation, supporting the defense industry, social and legal protection of our heroes-military personnel, volunteers, and those who were called up for mobilization.

Legislative decisions were made promptly, and with the active participation and support of all Duma factions, the Federation Council, and regional parliaments. I would like to say a few words of gratitude to you for this. Thank you for such a consolidated, collaborative effort.

However, not everything has been done yet, of course. A number of new measures to support the participants of the special operation and their families have been proposed by the parliamentary working group, and, of course, it needs to be worked out.

Another priority is to provide legal support for the full integration of the four regions that became part of Russia on September 30, 2022-the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics, Zaporozhye and Kherson regions.

It is important to conduct this work carefully and systematically so that people feel that they belong to the common economic, educational, and cultural space of our country. So that the entire system of labor and social guarantees, including high-quality medical care, is fully operational for them, jobs are created and, in general, conditions are created for dynamic economic growth, and infrastructure and life-support facilities are restored as soon as possible.

These are our historical lands and our native people. Many of you have been there. How do they differ from the other part and other parts of our people? Nothing. This is a part of our people. And we must do everything possible to defend and protect their unequivocal choice – to return to Russia.

Dear colleagues!

Today, in the face of Western economic aggression, the Parliament, the Government, and all regional and local authorities need to act clearly and quickly, and work as one cohesive, well-coordinated team.

I have already said in my Address that our task is not to adapt, not to wait out the period of difficulties, challenges and external pressure, but to create a base, a basis for the long-term, independent and successful development of our country. To strengthen its sovereignty in all its components: in politics and economy, science and technology, education and culture – relying primarily on internal resources, natural advantages, and the powerful creative potential of our multinational people.

In this regard, the law-making search should be aimed at full support of domestic enterprises, research centers and labor collectives, new breakthrough projects in all sectors and spheres, the general expansion of freedom of entrepreneurship, the elimination of barriers to business activity. As you can see, thank God, we are still doing well. It is enough to look at the results of work over the past year, and look at all the macroeconomic indicators. Thank God, the real incomes of citizens have also started to grow-so far modestly, but still. Look at the forecasts of the same international organizations for the growth of the Russian economy. Everything is more or less stable there. Even those who would not like to show these prospects are forced to show it. And look at those who are causing us problems. They seem to create them for themselves.

We need painstaking and subtle adjustments to the entire range of investment attraction mechanisms and tools that we have created, ensuring balanced territorial development and financial stability in all regions of the country: from Sakhalin to Kaliningrad, from the Russian Arctic to Crimea and Novorossiya.

And of course, the Parliament's primary concern should always be to improve the quality of life and incomes of people, to provide tangible, targeted support to our citizens, families with children, and people who find themselves in a difficult and difficult life situation. In general, the growth of the welfare of the people is our common primary task.

New initiatives for the development of the social sphere and economy, the sovereign education system ... I specifically used the phrase "sovereign education system", the most important element of our joint work, and this is the future of our country. I cannot but agree with many of the faction leaders I met not so long ago, and almost all of my colleagues are talking about this. I totally agree with them. I have already mentioned this in my Message on February 21. I see that active work is underway to implement the Address, and I ask you not to lose the pace and quality of working out the necessary bills.

And I would like to mention one more thing separately. I believe that parliamentary diplomacy is now becoming increasingly important. Our partners, or even former partners, in some countries are maniacally destroying the legal framework and channels of dialogue, trying to impose their views and so-called rules on everyone. What are the rules? I've already said it many times. No one saw them. Who wrote them, these rules? They write somewhere under the blanket and do something about it under the blanket themselves. But we won't go under the covers with them. But we are not going to follow their rules either.

However, despite all these efforts, the intensity of international contacts, including through our parliament, is not only not decreasing, but even increasing. This is a good, correct, indicative trend.

I repeat: Russia is not going to go into self-isolation. On the contrary, we will expand pragmatic, equal, mutually beneficial, exclusively partnership relations with friendly countries in Eurasia, Africa, and Latin America. In the same States, by the way, we have a lot of people who think the same way with us, in Europe. Elites behave differently. But we all know that the elites of these countries do not always pursue policies aimed at the interests of their own peoples. They will still be rewarded with this.

We are ready to work with those foreign partners, with global companies and corporations that value their business reputation and want to cooperate with Russia.

I hope that your numerous meetings with foreign colleagues will continue to strengthen interstate relations and mutual trust.

In general, dear colleagues, I would like to wish you success in your complex, multifaceted, diverse and very important work.

I once again congratulate you on the Day of Russian Parliamentarism, as well as on the upcoming May holidays, and first of all, of course, on the day that is sacred to us – the Day of the Great Victory, the Victory over Nazism.

All the best!

Thank you very much.

My VK essay on “Putin and Russia’s Political-Economy” published 31 July 2021:

An ongoing topic of discussion at the Moon of Alabama Geopolitical Blog is the political-economies of Russia and China and their differences with those of Neoliberal nations, especially that of the Outlaw US Empire. I've touched on this topic in a few of my previous articles. What follows isn't meant to be all inclusive and is disjointed by the nature of the discussion itself as at times some context is missing. And since it's a discussion, at times the prose is directed at an individual instead of a greater audience.

A few threads ago, I wrote a bit about what I saw as Putin's political-economy. First lets look at his top two goals both of which need the other to progress: Making Russia a Great Nation; uplifting the Russian people to a comfortable and sustainable condition with as much opportunity as they're capable of grasping. There's actually an overall Strategic Plan whose time-scope was just extended to 2030 and there's a government group tasked with design and implementation. Putin's hardcore focus is on the Russian family, particularly young people just getting started, and a great deal of support's gone in that direction both prior to and during Covid. Infrastructure is perhaps next after providing for the common defense. Gazprom was tasked with the job of connecting all households to gas mains, which given Russia's vastness is a tall task but one that must be accomplished. Same with roads, internet, water, and social services. Yes, the latter is seen as an infrastructure requirement. Diversification of Russia's economy in a manner that provides greater opportunities for Russians. Some of that's discussed in this op/ed.

As for Russia's central bank, it's firmly under the Kremlin's control, and its director--the supposed Neoliberal--has performed very well in providing traditional capital input in support of the overall Russian economy. Furthermore, most if not all of Russia's Natural Monopolies are run by state-owned companies--the energy and military sectors being most prominent. As Putin has said dozens of times, the sanctions proved to be a blessing.

A point I made in that previous thread was Russia has had to recover twice from two major wars waged against it and its people, the most recent being the 1990s Neoliberal Rape where many millions again died from Western Aggression, and in too many ways Russia resembled its war ravaged post WW2 self--recovery from which took almost two generations but by the early 1980s proved stillborn: We pretend to work and they pretend to pay us. For all intents and purposes, Russia is still recovering from the 1990s Rape. Both are the primary reason why in some areas Russia lags behind China. Perhaps the most farsighted action Putin took early in his tenure was to propose and consummate the Treaty of Friendship with China and thus put to rest the completely unnecessary and counterproductive strife between the two nations, which are now the symbiotic partners they should have become. But that's another story.

The easiest way to follow what Putin is doing to and for Russia is to read the Kremlin's website. For example, here and here he meets with the Council for Strategic Development and National Projects, the group I mentioned up top, and I do suggest reading both transcripts. In 2018, Putin signed an executive order prioritizing National Projects. A year later, that list was somewhat modified. [Both links now broken.] As Putin notes in his meetings, these National Projects suffered setbacks due to the pandemic but progress was made nonetheless. Note that the idea conforms to the Soviet 5-Year Plan format, although that was recently altered as you'll read.

I hope you and others who read this and its linked items will come away with a better idea of what's happening in Russia. An important final point is both Russia and China require peace to further their development, whereas the Outlaw US Empire which cares nothing about the condition of its people prefers to wage war and destabilize nations. That requirement explains quite a lot about the actions taken and not taken by Xi and Putin. Yet, it's not that simple for the Outlaw US Empire as its vassals--except the UK--also need peace and that does tie its hands to a degree as we just saw with Germany and NS2.

While doing my daily rounds, I was treated to further information about what Russia and Putin are doing to better improve the lives of all Russians and even those from other nations in this report presented to Putin by General Director of ANO Russia--Land of Opportunity--Alexei Komissarov. His testimony backs my steadfast assertion that Putin's primary aim is the development of Russia's Human Capital which provides the foundation for Russia's current development and future accomplishments:

"You have repeatedly stated that people are our country’s key asset. They are indeed talented, caring and highly motivated.

"The systemic work that is being pursued at your initiative, the work to identify, promote and develop talents, is yielding good results. In 2017, you took the decision to launch the Leaders of Russia contest. The same year, we launched a programme to train a personnel reserve at the Higher School of State Administration, RANEPA, dubbed the 'school of governors' by the media.

"In your 2018 Address to the Federal Assembly, you noted that a single platform was necessary. In fact, on May 22 you signed an Executive Order on the creation of the Autonomous Non-Profit Organisation Russia – Land of Opportunity. We have a mission that sounds rather serious: 'We are creating Russia’s future, opening equal opportunities for everyone.'

"Much has been done during these three-odd years. With your permission, I will share some figures and facts. These, incidentally, cover what has been done since the Supervisory Board’s meeting that you chaired in March, not only during these three years. There are changes in evidence. But first, I would like to share some sociological data.

"Polls show that 64 percent of our people believe that young people have an opportunity to realise their potential in Russia, to put their talents to use, and to succeed in life. As for those who took part in our projects, 93 percent think this.

"83 percent of the contestants said that taking part in our projects had a positive effect on their personal fulfilment, 65 percent said it helped them find their vocation, 97 percent mentioned the positive effect of our projects, 78 percent said their self-confidence had been boosted and 50 percent said that they have become happier. And it was not us conducting the polls, it was VTsIOM who are independent." [My Emphasis]

As you read further, you'll discover that Putin's initial initiative has spawned a galaxy of associated contests and organizations all aimed at Making Russia Great, many of which have roots in the Soviet Era. The stats are impressive. And this revelation proves Russia is anything but isolated:

"We received about 11,000 applications from 150 countries, which really amazed me. It is incredible: 150 countries have shown an interest in this competition. It is probably not all that surprising, because the prizes there are substantial. Thanks to your decision, finalists can apply for a simplified residence permit, and winners are even eligible for Russian citizenship. In fact, we have not found such examples anywhere in the world, where participants are transparently selected to obtain such opportunities. It seems to me that this is very important."

Clearly, Russia's attention to cultural outreach in its foreign relations are responsible for such a response, along with the prestige of Russia's educational institutions. And for someone my age, I find it excellent that Russia's elderly, "People of the 'silver age,'" also avail themselves of this opportunity at self-improvement and social activity. And these programs are still in their infancy. Clearly they can provide the basis for Russia's own meritocratic system for the proper utilization of every Russian's talent.

On the issue of Russia's central bank and Russia's banking system generally, what I see is adherence to the national development plan, which includes very generous help to young Russians wanting to buy a house--the democratization of land ownership which is a vital component for a balanced economy and national equity. Much like Germany, there's direct involvement of regional and national banks with industry as well as small and medium businesses, which is often a topic of the meetings on the economy held with Putin. The seemingly microscopic focus on Putin despite there being many other organizations and people involved in Russia's betterment is a product of "language transparency" since Kremlin products are published in English whereas specialist and Russian media is mostly Russian. My comment @136 is an example of that issue. There are times when I feel that I do a much better job of "Russia Watching" than those hired to do so by my government, although my POV would likely be rejected because it's anti governmental aims that I completely disagree with. That situation produces the sort of Group Think that produces far more harmful than good policy. But as long as the banking system operates as a public utility because that's how its directed politically, I don't see the need to try and legislate that it become what it's already doing, although before he retires Putin might suggest that be done.

As you're aware, I've been writing about the basic need for nations to tend first and foremost to their human capital since that's the basic component of any economically viable nation. For most of its existence, the USA has NOT valued its people when it comes to aiding their development--a fault many sociologists blame on the Puritans and their ill-effects considering their small percentage of the population. The regressive mantra that people are 100% responsible for the conditions they must contend with has long been behind the very high poverty rate, particularly among minorities subjected to economic discrimination. That form of regressive ethos is absent within Chinese and Russian cultures; they've always been far more collective and nurturing--although the Chinese attitude toward women was very regressive for a very long time and its hangover's still present. Looking at Anglo history, we can see that a longstanding Class War bordering on genocide existed prior to North America's colonization, and that attitude is very much alive in all Anglo nations, and there was no compunction about killing all the natives to steal their land which is the primary basis of Capital formation. We also know the genocide of First Peoples was driven by the elite as many White Slaves would escape to live a better life of freedom within their tribes; and then later, white commoners would emulate their masters in the killing since it was clearly okayed socially. Thus the 1% have no moral grounding capable of deterring them from their actions as they don't give a damn about the decline in the condition of the masses within their nations. That's one of the main reasons why I chronical Putin's efforts as much as I do primarily because they're opposite of what we see from Anglos. Trump said he wanted to MAGA but did zip. And the same goes for Biden. When looked at closely from the outside, the examples of Russia and China are very powerful compared to Anglo Anti-Humanism. Failure to make the Four Freedoms a reality within their own nations is one of the major reasons Anglo nations no longer enjoy the sort of soft power they did in the first two decades after WW2, and is a big reason why JFK was adored internationally because he spoke of the need to finish the job.

Given the above combined with the fact that there's no more native land to steal or nations to exploit and expropriate, Russia, China and other likeminded nations merely need to stay their course of prioritizing the uplifting of their human capital while being prudent economically, meaning not to become too overly indebted in a currency not your own. Russia and China can help facilitate other nations by doing business in each others currencies, a trend that's occurring but must be escalated. Knowing what not to allow to occur within a nation's political-economy is paramount, the main issue being public control/direction of the financial system by having it promote the real economy and the masses that make it happen. Another key point is to jettison Neoliberalism and its Junk economics and adopt traditional industrial capitalism while nationalizing all natural monopolies and adopting modes of taxation that eliminate the Free Lunch provided by economic rent. A citizenry that are substantial owners of their national wealth with no detrimental Class divisions is what ought to be the ultimate goal of political-economy.

My decades of historical studies show one main constant over the last 3-4,000 years of Western history--An ongoing Class War with Creditors subjugating Debtors thanks to their ability to gain control of government and later establish and control the fundamental media and educational narrative. I wrote what follows as a comment on this assertion:

The world has never really seen anything like modern China's approach to economics and finance.

It is a mix of communism and capitalism. Possibly the best mix so far implemented in world history.

Most will never know since the study of Political-Economy no longer exists in most Neoliberal nations since its truths overpower the BigLies of Neoliberalism. There was once an American School of Political-Economy; Hudson and several others have written about its existence and its practitioners. Its last two major members were Thorstein Veblen and Simon Patten, the latter known for his Economy of Abundance, the former most famously for his critiques: The Leisure Class and its Conspicuous Consumption. Without the wholesale suppression of Political-Economy as an academic pursuit, Neoliberalism would never have attained a foothold within the USA or anywhere else on the planet. If you know nothing about Marx, how can anything be critiqued using the Marxist School of Thought? Same with all the other Classical Economists, particularly Adam Smith, whose words are twisted and turned inside-out. Furthermore, the study of Political-Economy follows directly from the study of Moral Philosophy, about which Adam Smith wrote first, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, seventeen years prior to An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Here's one of Hudson's many comments on the situation:

"Chicago School practitioners of free-market mathematics crow that 'there is no such thing as a free lunch,' distracting attention from economic reality by dropping the history of economic thought and economic history itself from the curriculum. The very idea that there is such a thing as a free lunch is deemed heretical. This idea now governs academic departments and monopolizes the most prestigious economic journals, without publication in which it is difficult for junior faculty ever to rise to tenured positions in their universities. The aim is to censor the perception that today’s economy is all about getting a free lunch by obtaining legal privileges, as exemplified by the recent U.S. health care HMOs, the bailouts over banks deemed 'too big to fail' and other beneficiaries of government largesse." [My Emphasis]

Then there's this explanation that's more specific:

"We look at how the economy, goods and services and labor, exists within the context of wealth and assets and debt. And this is how people looked at the economy before there was anti-classical reaction in the 1890’s. We look at how land ownership, banks and credit shape the framework within which the economy operates – at interest.

"So we’re classical economists. Hyman Minsky was the main modern monetary theorist. Heterodox meant that he got his ideas largely from Marx. You can say classical political economy reached its logical conclusion with Marx. Capital was the last great work of classical economics, and showed where its logic was leading. Marx showed that capitalism itself was revolutionary. Capitalism was a continually self-transforming system. And so we’re looking at how the economy changes, not how it might settle at equilibrium without political change. It evolves, in what Marx called the laws of motion. So we’re putting the political back into what used to be political economy – before the 'political' was stripped out a century ago and it moved toward today’s more tunnel-visioned 'economics.'" [My Emphasis]

You must know your enemy is a longstanding maxim. Unless you learn Political-Economy's history, you won't have the proper weapons to use to defeat Neoliberalism. Hudson's been singing that tune since the 1970s, but he all too often sings solo. More now seem to be listening thanks to the vast damage Neoliberalism's done, especially in the developing world. It's often said by both sides that there's no ideological war at the base of Cold War 2.0 between the Neoliberal Outlaw US Empire and China, but we know much better. I'd call it Rentier Finance Capitalism versus Collectivist Social-Capitalism--the former seeking to capture and turn the primary basis of Capital into a Free Lunch versus the latter which seeks to eliminate the Free Lunch so Capital--safeguarded in the hands of the state--can serve the overall population.

Someone objected saying that Marx never addressed corruption. My reply follows:

You're correct to an extent--the vast amounts of corruption existed within the last vestiges of Feudalism during Marx's era, and that's the sort of corruption he and other Classical Economists strove to destroy. That Class fought back and formulated Neoliberalism to keep eating its Free Lunch. To a degree, that Class created Communism as a foil to allow it to regain its lost political power. Hudson dates that Class's Reaction to 1890, but IMO it's earlier, 1870s, with Bismarck's rise. My research goal is to uncover the displacement of Classical Political-Economy and to detail how Neoliberalism was made to supplant it so it can finally be completely denounced and destroyed. The 20th Century's dots I've connected, but still need to uncover the 19th Century's. I can happily report I have more leads now than last January. I look at it as a Crime investigation--3,000+ years of ongoing crime enriching the Few at the expense and lives of the Masses.

During what's likely Putin's last decade at the helm, he's been extremely active in promoting long term policy goals aimed at Making Russia Great that would be very difficult by any successor to undo because of their popularity. His party, United Russia, will remain in control of the Duma after the September elections and quite possibly much longer given the challenge he's made to its members which he delivered in his speech at United Russia's 20th Congress back in June, this small portion being key:

“But, of course, it is the United Russia as the majority party that plays a key role here. To take responsibility, to lead, to be in the forefront means to work harder and better than others, to act much more energetically and persistently, and to do that, both in the legislative sphere and in everyday work you need to quickly and clearly resolve issues of concern to our citizens, to achieve substantive results, value people's trust, preserve and constantly strengthen it.” [My Emphasis]

As a result, I expect Russia's system to increasingly look like China's system since the latter's CPC shares the same goals. Even Russia's Communist Party often second's Putin's and United Russia's proposals. And by system I mean their political-economies since both share the same goal and espouse the Win-Win philosophy in foreign relations. As both nations overcome their urban-rural divides, they should become more equitable and socialist. I don't expect either nation to become 100% socialist--a socialist nation meaning its citizens own everything within the nation, that no private property exists--but to retain mixed economies that ensure entrepreneurs inhabit economic areas that don't compete with state/people asset ownership. For example, telecommunications is an area connected to national security and ought to be wholly owned by the people/state, but entrepreneurs can operate under that umbrella to develop technologies that advance it, thus allowing innovation to continue. Eventually as resources decline and population continues to expand a steady-state economy will need to be employed, but such a a situation doesn't automatically mean the curtailing of people's opportunities as the illusive goal of attaining wisdom will always remain. Those nations with a majority socialist economic mix won't need to make massive adjustments as they ought to have already become moderately prosperous societies able to continue their status quo.

*
*
*
Like what you’ve been reading at Karlof1’s Substack? Then please consider subscribing and choosing to make a monthly/yearly pledge to enable my efforts in this challenging realm. Thank You!