Harmonious Economics or The New World Order

It is interesting to point out that in Siberia, which was being conquered by Russia around the same time, not a single ethnic group perished, even among the smallest ones, and all animal populations were preserved. Siberia never knew any reservations, deportations, slavery of the natives or their total extermination.

This has been true throughout the course of history. It was not by chance that British historian Stuart Laycock entitled one of his books All the Countries We’ve Ever Invaded and the Few We Never Got Round To. Out of 193 UN member-states, 171 have been attacked by Anglo-Saxons. This estimation does not cover the numerous hybrid and information wars that are waged all over the planet. In 2004, the Congressional Research Service made an attempt at assessing the total number of military conflicts that the US has ever participated in. The result was the astronomic figure of 261 acts of aggression or “actions to defend democracy’ across the world. Furthermore, the majority of these attacks were launched against known weak adversaries, which makes it evident with whom the initiative lies.

Moreover, such interventions were not military only. As US President Dwight D. Eisenhower admitted, “Hitherto applicable norms of conduct do not apply… We must… learn to subvert, sabotage, and destroy our enemy by more clever, more sophisticated and more effective methods than those used against us’33. As the result, entire nations are made fools of, the leaders who do not suit the US are removed, confrontations between different groups within the same people are set up, governments are overthrown, and civil wars unleashed. The rivers of blood are to satisfy the American thirst for global hegemony, and there is an endless number of examples to support this claim.

Besides shaping the state philosophy in Europe and the US, actively employed in practice, such psychology has assured its own continuity, and has almost become official. Its fruit is state policy driven by deception, cynicism and avarice. This system completely ignores the notions of Truth and Justice, or else uses them as required.

Though it is evident that the West still has many romantics who are truly grieved by the troubles of the others, however this sympathy should not be associated with the state politics.

Without any doubt, throughout its complex history Russia has not always been an amorphous and invariably just power. But then, is there any country in the world that could have escaped this fate and that would have always been right? For justice’s sake, it might be pointed out that per each offensive of the Russian army there were eight defences. Russians fought back the Khazars, the Pechenegs, the Cumans, the Mongols, the Tatars, the Swedes, the Polish, the Lithuanians, the Hungarians, the Croatians, the Turks, the French, the English, the German… Often Russia did it at the cost of numerous victims, mostly among the local civilian population. Here lies the fundamental difference of the Russian and the western civilisations, the differences of their visions and understanding of the limit between what is allowed and what is forbidden.

As the result, the West developed an unprecedented aggression towards all other peoples, in particular, towards Russians, as people of different cultural values. Indeed, the European hatred for Russia has existed for a long time. It is even more deeply rooted than state competition or ideologic discord. For instance, the motto “Drang nach Osten’ (“drive toward the East’) was coined in the times when Russian tribes living along the Volkhov and Dnieper rivers were completely unfamiliar with statehood. It was first proposed by Charles the Great in the eighth century, then it was taken up by the first leaders of the Holy Romain Empire; later – adopted by the Anglo-Saxons.

This hatred was evoked by Mikhail Lomonosov, Alexander Pushkin and Ivan Turgenev. “There is no other nation about whom as many lies, absurdities and calumnies have been made up, as there have been about Russians’ (Empress Catherine the Great, 1729—1796). “We should not deceive ourselves. The hostility of Europe is too evident: it does not reside in the chance combinations of European politics, or in the ambition of any of the state leaders, but in the key European interests’ (N. Danilevsky, nineteenth century). “And there is not a piece of slander that Europe would not circulate against us’ (Fyodor Dostoevsky)34.

In total, the centuries-long western policy towards Russia may be described in the following way: “Europeans need an ugly Russia: barbarian, so that they could ‘civilize’ it according to their own taste; dangerously big, so that they could split it; aggressive, so that they could set up a coalition against it; reactionary and religiously decaying, so that they could break in with their propaganda of Reformation and Catholicism; and economically insolvent, so that they could claim its ‘unused’ territories, its raw materials, or, at least, its profitable trade agreements and concessions’ (philosopher I. A. Iliyn). Though these words were written 90 years ago, they still ring a bell with the modern people.

Moreover, throughout its history, whenever Europe was in trouble, it was helped out by Russia, who never saw its assistance returned. On the contrary, Europe always allied with the enemies of Russia, be it during Russia’s struggle against the predatory eastern hordes, the Time of Troubles, the wars against Turkey, all other wars or even the present day international terrorism counteraction. “No Russian service for the all-European causes (the Seven Years’ War, fight against Napoleon, the rescue of Prussia in 1805—1815, the rescue of Austria in 1849, the rescue of France in 1875, the peaceful politics of Alexander III, The Hague Conferences, or the sacrifice in the war against Germany in 1914—1917) is valid in front of this fear; no noble and selfless actions of the Russian leaders were capable of stop this European ranting’ (I. A. Iliyin).

The West has always been hostile to Russia. Thus, as the February and the October revolutions of 1917, together with the liberals, the Bolshevism and the subsequent events, were not born in the Russian soil, they were welcomed by the “progressive’ movements of the West. Besides, “All [revolutionary] movements in Russia emerged under the influence of Western Europe and bore the imprint of the prevailing European beliefs’ (Prince P. A. Kropotkin).

Even during World War II, besides the official allies of the Nazi Germany (Finland, Romania, Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, and Italy), the USSR had to face 18 thousand volunteers from the occupied Netherlands, 12 thousand Danish, Swedes and Norwegians, 6 thousand French, 4 thousand Walloons, and 4 thousand Spanish (data provided by the Major General of Wehrmacht von Buttlar). The Hitlerites were well supplied with raw materials and arms from France, Slovakia, Poland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark and even Switzerland, so the USSR was in fact fighting against entire Europe.

A real genocide of Russians, including their history, culture and language, was under way after the collapse of the USSR in the Baltic countries, in Ukraine and many CIS countries; it has been invariably and cynically welcomed by the advocates of “human rights’ in the West. If it views the adversaries of black people as racists, those of the Jewish – as anti-Semites, and those of Russians – as human rights activists. These are links in one and the same chain, the result of one centuries-long policy. Useless to call for truth and justice, to try to evoke the nobility or even basic decency. For all of these are absent.

The fundamental incompatibility of the Russian and the western world is further proven by the observation that as soon as Russia became closer with the West, it faced decline, new troubles and cataclysms. Indeed, only friendship with the Anglo-Saxons can be more devastating than the war with them. “To be an enemy of America can be dangerous, but to be a friend is fatal’, warned Henry Kissinger. The West has actually taken advantage of Russia’s credulity to proceed to information attacks against the country, to deceive, to rob and to humiliate. N. Berdyaev claimed that Marxism first appeared in Russia as an “extreme form of westernism’. It conforms better with the western struggle for existence than with the Russian struggle for the truth. This is why there is no surprise in the deplorable result of such assimilations, as the desire to impose foreign ideas in an unsuitable soil cannot result in success. Besides, the current “reforms’, ugly and deceptive as they are, were not conceived in Russia.

“The West has been and will be God’s punishment for us, which we still fail to realize. We are stuck in the western mud up to the ears, and we are good. We have eyes, but fail to see; we have ears, but fail to hear, and our heart is ignorant’ (Theophan the Recluse of the Vysha Monastery). This thought is echoed by professor Yu. M. Osipov: “The tragedy of Russia lies in its interaction with Europe’. For this reason, only then Russian revival started when the country discarded western values and was nourished by its own roots. And this is precisely what we witness today.

Thus, the confrontation of Russia and the West is of fundamental nature. It is produced by the collision of different civilisations, and not only by simple disagreement with certain actions, ideology, leaders, or their policy. Due to its uncompromising stand, the West cannot reconcile itself neither with Russia’s difference, not with its religion, its originality or wealth.

The processes described above have left us too different from one another. While a western person defends his individuality, a Russian affirms his belonging to a greater entity. Western people are attached to law, to private property and to man-made justice; Russians are inspired by fairness, social prosperity and justice of Heaven. Where they attempt to resolve problems by force, we act through compromise and agreement.

On the other hand, western society has also created a unique culture, has produced greatest philosophy, painting, music, architecture and poetry. Western pragmatism has improved economic systems, social structure and everyday life. It has generated modern science, education and art. Thus, it has significantly influenced all aspects of the daily life in Russia and the entire world. This attitude has also shaped the mind of the Russian westernists, who adore western culture and do the best to introduce western values on the Russian territory. Above all, the west has in many ways been regarded as a standard of “good’ development.

The considerable differences between the European and the Russian civilisations, cultures, and values prevent the efficient implementation of the said achievements in Russia. Our country is thus relegated to the position of permanent lagging behind, of imitation and longing for applause. For instance, Russian people tend to believe that “human being is superior to the property principle’ and that the idea of “natural law’, which serves as the basis of the Western European moral, is understood through the ideals of Virtue, Justice and Truth. Is it possible then for Capitalism to be as successful in Russia as it is in the West?

On the contrary, the model based on the activity of smaller groups, where “one is for all, and all – for one’ has proved most productive in Russia. The main rules of such system are described in paragraph 2.3. This set-up employs the group initiative, inherent of Russian people, as well as original thinking and collective talent. “These factors precisely have contributed, from the initial stages and throughout the history, to the formation of common, group structures for governance, of collective, often artel-type forms of labour organisation; they have laid the foundation of the further development of corporations’35 (academician L. T. Abalkin [24]). Where Russians abandoned these principles, and tried to follow blindly the foreign rules of organisation, of human relations, and property, they inevitably failed. This entailed useless lamentations on the originality, incapacity, backwardness, stupidity, lack of culture and mystery of the Slavic soul. However, it would suffice to give up foreign authorities and let Russia live in accordance with its own principles.

For this reason, the ideology of unlimited private property has failed and will fail to get rooted in the Russian soil. The principle that preconizes that the more money a person has, the more rights this person enjoys, will never be understood by the Russian people. It is evident that the western principle of money-grabbing that is not conductive to the well-being of the society is regarded by Russians as deeply immoral.

At the same time, it should be admitted that Russian society has not been able to find its proper economic system that would conform as much as possible with its culture, faith, harmonious vision of the world, sobornost and reality of life. That is why during the entire past millennium Russia has been forced to use western-made surrogates. This brings a feeling of disharmony in the economic relations and fundamental national values. Science starts rushing frantically from one fashionable western doctrine to another. And the West, with a certain desire of profit, keeps supplying new doctrines. Sometimes it is done through information media, and sometimes – through collaborators, by means of disinformation and force. Besides, the West enjoys shamelessly the opportunities that such methods provide.

In the light of the foregoing, the sanctions imposed on Russia by the West are, in reality, beneficial for the country. They finally oblige it to look for its own ways of resolving the problems that have accumulated and of resorting to its advantages based the country’s specific features. Russia is forced to propose an alternative society organisation, a new world order inspired by the national roots, experience and history not of Russians, but of all other peoples as well. The present book is dedicated to the description of one possible type of such organisation.

§1.2. Economic objectives and tools

1.2.1. What is economics?

…the reason for some gods to be overthrown, and for others – worshipped, has always been and still is not religion, but politics…

V. I. Sergeev

Let us consider this phenomenon in greater detail. The term “economics’ is derived from the Greek word oikonomike which means “the art of managing a household’. For the first time it was mentioned in the fifth century by Xenophon, who put it as a title for his work. In it he considered the rational rules for household and agricultural management with the view of increasing profitability. Later the scope of economy as a science was expanded to encompass the entire range of economic activities. It was also then when first discrepancies in interpretation emerged.

Plato, for instance, believed that the purpose of an ideal state was to “banish meanness and covetousness from the souls of men’ [25]36. Aristotle distinguished between the true economic activities aimed at producing goods for home and for the state, and other activities seeking to make profit (this second type was known as chrematistics) [26]. In fact, he considered the latter type of economic activities perverted. In particular, the philosopher was indignant at the interest that let the usurer make profit without participating in the production of useful goods, but just by transforming money into a source of new money. This, according to Aristotle, distorted its nature, for money is meant for exchange, and not for making non-productive profit.

One of the first economists, Jean-Baptiste Say claimed in 1803 that economics “…teaches about the constitution, the distribution and the consumption of wealth’. Some modern scientists believe that “economics is a discipline that studies the way a society with limited, scarce resources decides upon what should be produced, how and for whom’ (S. Fisher, R. Dornbush, R. Shmlenzi). But there exist other definitions: “There are four main ways to acquire wealth: violence, lawful transfer, gift and exchange. Among the four, only the last one is related to economics’ (Jacques Leon Rueff). The problem is that people try to use economics in all of the cited cases.

The most complete definition of economics seems to be given by A. Marshall who considers that “Economics is a science about the regular human vital activity’. Nevertheless, this definition does not specify what “regular human vital activity’ is and how it can be achieved. So, let us try to elaborate on this idea.

Political economy as a science was thoroughly studied by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1672—1716). His theory was based on the vision of the world as a system of energy and material flows. That is why Leibniz’s understanding of economics was modelled on the principles realized in heat engines, as well as some other technological advances of the time. Thus, Leibniz believed that the level of efficiency of an economic process is determined by the amount of total human effort saved. Consequently, he introduced the idea of the “market basket’: while its contents remain unchanged, less effort is required of the society to produce it.

On this assumption, Leibniz formulated the main purpose of economics: increase the productive capacities of human labour through technical and organisational measures. The result of this approach was the theory of “natural law’ elaborated by Leibniz; it later served for justification of universal moral. According to this theory, an individual person is responsible not only for himself but for the entire humanity – both his rights and obligations to the society were thus detailed. Besides, Leibniz studies the basics of harmonious and self-consistent economic organisation of human beings, as well as many other questions [27].

Leibniz had his disciples. One of them, Jean Charles Léonard de Sismondi viewed political economy not as a study of wealth and the ways to increase it, but as a science of the social mechanism improvement for the benefit of the human beings. He considered economics a moral science dealing with human nature, not only with economic relations. Similarly, David Ricardo explored economics as a complex system with its objective economic laws whose functioning is supported by specific mechanisms related to the prevailing trends [28]. One of the first Russian economists, I. T. Pososhkov (1652—1729) adopted a similar approach and studied the issues related to national economic development, instead of looking for ways to assure active trade balance. He saw labour as the source of prosperity and condemned wealth as a symbol of self-interest that contradicted the moral principles of the society [29].

Later, the works of Sadi Carnot, S. A. Podolinky, Lyndon LaRouche, P. G. Kuznetsov and other eminent scientists elaborated the idea of economy aimed at common benefit and not at profit. However, at present this economic approach has been abandoned.

The economic theory presented in the monograph continues the traditions of the said economic school. It views economy as an integral and self-consistent system, as a structure built in accordance with harmonious principles that do not contradict the laws of the Universe, but are bound together by a strict and consistent logic. The purpose of such economy is attainment of material and spiritual well-being both of individual people and of the society in general.

The theory of G. Leibniz was contradicted by the human society model proposed by J. Locke (1632—1704) [30]. According to the latter, the state should be built upon the principle of personal freedom. “No man is entitled to limit the other man’s life, health, freedom or property’37, established this theory. Locke presented property as an integral part of any economic process. Moreover, he believed that the human soul is a “tabula rasa’ later imprinted with experience, and that the behaviour of every person is conditioned by their personal benefit. According to Locke, social instincts were underdeveloped in humans, and moral was not employed in economic activities. Thus, John Locke can be considered the founder of ideology of classical liberalism.

The essence of the theoretical foundations of this doctrine is the following: the liberals admit and even insist on the relations between personal freedom, private property, and the society’s economic prosperity. Besides, the individualism of this approach, which became one of the founding principles of the European civilisation, was not considered egotism and narcissism of people, but respect for the individual, and an absolute priority of every person’s right for self-realisation in this world.

The implementation of liberal ideas in everyday economic processes is due to Adam Smith (1723—1790). In his work [31] Smith presented the concept of economic person driven by egotism and thirst for wealth. The author claimed that when a person acts solely in accordance with their own selfish interests, they do not only increase their capital, but also multiply their wealth. Based on this assumption, Adam Smith introduced the famous idea of the “invisible hand of the market’ that manages on its own all economic processes. He considered money as a source of wealth and as a technical tool that simplifies exchange of commodities.

At the same time, none of the above-mentioned scientists have defined the limits of liberal doctrine application, that is why economics did not prevent the liberation of ones through restricting the freedom of others. On the contrary, it enabled certain individuals to make profit without bearing any responsibility. It did not oppose to living at the expense of others, whatever harm this way of life inflicted upon Nature and the society. Moreover, this doctrine infused western mentality economic system with the Darwinian struggle for existence, which justified any methods that assure personal success. Thus, the economic functions of production and distribution were separated from one another. As the result, the ideological basis of capitalism emerged.

It is this vision that is still applied today to the entire global capitalist system. It is part of the foundation of all present-day economic theories. What is more, this particular vision is studied and implemented by the modern economic science and economy, it is thoroughly supported by the legal framework and legislation, as well as justified through the history of human development. As the result, liberal economy gets a moral excuse not to serve the society in general but to satisfy the interests of specific individuals. The economists have been led to believe that this type of organisation is the only one possible and they fight against the multiple drawbacks of liberal economy by liberal methods: they are enslaved by the rudimentary profit-generating economy just because they are unfamiliar with other possibilities.

The logical consequence of this situation has been the desire to govern this amorphous human mass with the help of such universal tool as money. For this reason, all the current and previous reputed economic theories have to a certain extent been focused on financial instruments and the methods of making various types of profit. This is why “economics is mostly interested in the study of methods of setting monetary price for commodities and services sold at the market’38 (Ludwig von Mises [30]). As the result, economics has moved to serve business rather than the society in general, to care for income and profits, rather than general well-being. Furthermore, little attention is given to developing efficient labour factors.

This narrow-mindedness of economics has made this science groundless and largely remote from the reality. The objectives of various social strata have drifted apart, which in itself is a sign of regression. For instance, the acquisition of foreign goods often produces additional income, however, it leads to repression of local manufacturers. Moreover, the very citizens of a country become out of demand within such economy. Hence additional profit is made by certain individuals at the expense of others. This is an objective controversy that needs to be resolved.