What is a global war. Global war or world revolution? According to Vanga

CHAPTER 2 A GLOBAL WAR: SPIES AND SPOINTERS Although international relations were constantly escalating, before 1914 Europe managed to avoid war. However, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, and his wife Sophia, Duchess of Hohenberg, during

global war

Global War The British approached the Dominions with a request to seize the nearby colonies of Germany, and they happily agreed. By October 1914, the islands of Samoa were conquered by New Zealand, and German New Guinea and the Bismarck archipelago (now Papua New Guinea) -

The global war has begun

A global war has begun "War on terror"? If it were a film, its script would have been rejected as knowingly false and worthless. First lie: In 1999, and then in 2001, the Taliban came to the conclusion that Bin Laden's presence on their territory interfered with

Global war or world revolution? Shamil Sultanov October 30, 2014 4 Politics Economics memories of the future Within the framework of the general systems theory, the cold war can be interpreted as a specific mechanism for managing a sufficiently long and stable

Global war or world revolution?

Global war or world revolution? Shamil Sultanov November 6, 2014 2 Politics Economy memories of the future End. Beginning - in No. 44 (1093) Interstructural contradictions The sixth technological mode is fundamentally different from all previous

Could a third world war break out in 2018?

If so, here are five risk areas where this could happen, as identified by Aftonbladet.

“There is an increased risk,” says Isak Svensson, professor of peace and conflict studies at Uppsala University.

Republican Senator Bob Corker has warned that Donald Trump could lead the US down "the road to a third world war."
There is a risk that he is not completely mistaken.

According to Isak Svensson, professor of peace and conflict studies, there are three factors that hinder war more than others.

All of them are now collapsing, largely because of Trump and rising nationalism.

1. International organizations

“One of the goals of the UN, the OSCE (Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe), the EU and similar organizations is to reduce the risk of armed conflict. But because Trump is constantly trying to dismantle international cooperation, these organizations may weaken. This will affect the risk of war,” says Isak Svensson.

2. International trade

During his campaign, Trump accused China of "raping" the American economy. Therefore, many experts expected that he would impose customs duties on Chinese goods, which would result in a full-fledged trade war.

“That hasn't happened yet, but at least he signaled that he's not particularly interested in encouraging free trade,” Isak Svensson said.

3. Democracy

The two democracies have never been at war with each other. But the wave of nationalism that has swept the world can rock democracies.

“Populist nationalism has targeted democratic institutions: universities, courts, media, electoral bodies, and so on. This is noticeable in the United States under Trump, in Hungary, Poland and Russia, for example, ”says Isak Svensson.

Threat from nationalism

Svensson sees how nationalism threatens all three factors preventing war.

“Nationalism exists not only in peripheral countries, but now it is also spreading among the main players in the international arena: in the US, in the UK in the form of Brexit, in the EU with its Poland and Hungary, which can weaken European cooperation. India and China are very strongly influenced by nationalist ideologies, as well as Turkey and Russia. All this, together with Trump, negatively affects these three factors. There is a considerable risk of interstate conflicts,” says Isak Svensson.

However, he does not believe that a major global war is likely.

“The probability of this is small. By and large, inter-state conflicts are very unusual, and over time they happen less and less. But if this happens, then the events unfold very intensively,” says Isak Svensson.

Here are the hottest hotbeds of tension.

North Korea

States: North Korea, USA, Japan, China.

North Korea conducts nuclear weapons test explosions and constantly develops new missiles. One of the latest missiles tested this summer is capable of hitting the US, but it's not clear if North Korea can equip it with a nuclear warhead.

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un and US President Donald Trump exchanged hate-filled verbal provocations, including Trump's promise to meet North Korea with "fire and fury."

The US is allied with South Korea and Japan, which also feel threatened by North Korea. And this closed dictatorship in turn receives support from China.

“In the short term, the most problematic area is the Korean Peninsula,” says Niklas Swanström, head of the Institute for Security Policy and Development.

“At the same time, the likelihood that China will protect North Korea is very small. This will only happen if there is a threat to the direct interests of China, that is, if the United States sends troops to the Chinese borders or something like that.”

Isak Svensson agrees that Korea is the most worrying because the situation there is unpredictable.

“It is not very likely, but it is possible that something will happen there. Everyone is in tension, various exercises are being held and a demonstration of strength to each other, there is a big risk that something will go wrong. This can start the process even if no one really wants it. No one is interested in bringing things to a full-scale war, but there is still a risk of this, ”says Isak Svensson.

The biggest problem is poor communication, says Niklas Svanström.

“There are no security structures in Northeast Asia. A military confrontation can escalate very sharply.”

South China Sea

States: USA, China, Taiwan, Vietnam, Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei.

Here is one of the most serious pockets of tension, according to Isak Svensson.

“There is an incredibly large military potential. The likelihood that something will happen is small, but if it does, the consequences will be catastrophic. There are nuclear weapons there, and alliances have been made between different countries, so they can drag each other into all sorts of complications in relations.”

At first glance, the conflict revolves around hundreds of small islands and reefs near China, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines. Approximately half of the islands are under the control of one of the four countries.

Both China and Taiwan and Vietnam claim the entire Spratly archipelago, the Philippines, Malaysia and Brunei also have their own claims.

In early 2014, China began clearing seven reefs under its control between the islands and laying bases on them.

The situation is marked by ever-increasing tensions between China and the US, as the rising Chinese power increasingly challenges the US as the world's sole superpower.

“This century will be marked by the US-China relationship,” says Niklas Granholm, research director at the Total Defense Institute, FOI.

“There is a shift in power and means of influence in the international system. In relative terms, China's power is growing while US power is shrinking. It is the conflicts that may arise around this division of power that will become the most important. We can talk about the position of China in relation to Taiwan, China in relation to Japan, relations with North Korea. A lot of things can matter there,” adds Niklas Granholm.

Niklas Svanström also believes that the relationship between China and the United States is the most dangerous in the long run.

“The only variant of World War III that can be imagined obviously involves China and the US. I can’t say that this worries me, in my opinion, indirect conflicts may arise, that is, the war will be waged in a third country,” says Niklas Svanström.

India - Pakistan

States: India, Pakistan, USA, China, Russia.

The disputed northern province of Kashmir is in practice divided between India and Pakistan. There have been several wars between countries for the right to this area, and new conflicts are constantly breaking out.

After 18 Indian soldiers were killed in a terrorist attack on a military base in September 2016, India's Home Minister tweeted:

"Pakistan is a terrorist state that should be named and isolated."

Pakistan vehemently denied any involvement in the incident.

“Relations between India and Pakistan are always turbulent. Right now, it doesn’t look like there will be a strong escalation, but there is nothing to indicate any big moves towards their rapprochement in the future, ”says Isak Svensson.

Both countries are nuclear powers, and each supposedly has more than 100 nuclear warheads.

"It's easy to imagine an unintentional escalation to a full-fledged nuclear war that no one wants but can be triggered by terrorism," Matthew Bunn, a nuclear weapons analyst at Harvard's Belfer Center, told the Huffington Post.

India has a policy of not being the first to use nuclear weapons. Instead, an attempt was made to increase the ability to respond to provocations by rapidly sending armored columns deep into Pakistani territory.

Militarily weaker Pakistan responded by introducing Nasr short-range missiles that can be equipped with nuclear warheads.

Many experts fear that a development where Pakistan feels compelled to use tactical nuclear weapons to defend itself could quickly turn a small conflict into a full-blown nuclear war.

Niklas Svanström, however, believes that the likelihood of a world war is low.

“Other countries do not have interests related to security policy there. Pakistan has close relations with China, while India has close relations with Russia. But neither Russia nor China will take risks and start a large-scale military confrontation. It is also hard for me to imagine that the US would interfere in such a conflict.”

India - China

Indian Army General Bipin Rawat said in early September that the country should prepare for a two-front war against Pakistan and China.

Shortly before this, a ten-week confrontation between China and India over the definition of the border ended in the Himalayas. Chinese road builders escorted by the military were stopped by Indian troops. The Chinese claimed to be in China, the Indians claimed to be in Bhutan, an ally of India.

According to Bipin Rawat, such a situation could easily escalate into a conflict, and Pakistan could then use this situation to its advantage.

“We must be prepared. In the context of our situation, war is very real,” Rawat said, according to the Press Trust of India.

The border between China and India has long been a point of contention, but the atmosphere is now quite relaxed. But while China and Pakistan have moved closer economically, aggressive nationalism suggests that this may be changing.

“It is difficult to see any hints as to why a conflict could break out there, but there is an increased risk of this. The economies of both countries are growing rapidly, and both countries are spurred on by rather aggressive nationalism. The unresolved territorial issue is, of course, a clear risk factor,” says Isak Svensson.

Niklas Svanström does not think that China will gain much from this conflict, and that India simply cannot win a war against China. Conflicts will continue, but on a limited scale.

“The only situation that can lead to a full-scale war is if India recognizes Tibet as an independent country and starts supporting the Tibetan military movement that is fighting against China. I regard this as something extremely unlikely,” says Niklas Svanström.

the Baltic States

States: Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, NATO military alliance.

One of the biggest risks that could now lead to conflict is Russia's growing ambitions against Europe, says Niklas Granholm, head of research at the Total Defense Institute, FOI.

“Russia has abandoned the set of rules that has been in place since the early 1990s and which defines European security measures,” says Niklas Granholm. - The main milestone in this matter was the war against Ukraine, when in 2014 there was an invasion of this country and the annexation of Crimea, which marked the beginning of the conflict in eastern Ukraine. Russia has shown great faith in military means. The Baltic region has again found itself on the line of confrontation between East and West, which seemed to many quite improbable just a few years ago.”

The cause of the conflict may be ethnic Russian minorities in the Baltic countries, says Isak Svensson.

“In Ukraine, Russia has shown that it is ready to use military force in order, from its point of view, to protect Russian-speaking minorities. Thus, there is a hidden risk of Russian intervention in the Baltics if an internal crisis breaks out in any of the countries. Such a scenario is quite conceivable. It is rather unlikely today, but possible in the future.”

Subscribe to us

Within the framework of the general systems theory, the "cold war" can be interpreted as a specific mechanism for managing a sufficiently long and stable international conflict situation. This phenomenon became possible in the conditions of such a global structure of international relations, where rather strict rules of the "great game" were guaranteed to function, where lines were clearly marked that could not be crossed, where confidential means of communication were laid, allowing opponents to negotiate even during the most acute phases of political and power clashes ...

"But today is not the same as yesterday..." The main stimulus of the current growing strategic uncertainty, growing ontological chaos is not so much competing geopolitical strategies, not the totality of what used to be called "social superstructure", not Putin and not Obama, not the CIA and not the FSB how much is a special phenomenon - "the sum of technologies", in the words of S. Lem.

The most important and most dangerous (for everyone without exception on our planet) is that no one, anywhere, controls the flow of these technologies: neither academics, nor special service generals, nor "responsible" state leaders.

We have entered the border zone that connects the present with the approaching future - the sixth technological order (TS), the contours of which are already beginning to shine through menacingly in some places ...

The sixth TU is mass, total, systemic, large-scale development and application of science-intensive "high technologies". The basis of the sixth TU should be biotechnologies and genetic engineering, intelligent information networks, superconductors and clean energy, nanotechnologies, membrane and quantum technologies, photonics, micromechanics, thermonuclear energy. A potential synthesis of discoveries in these areas should eventually lead to the creation of, for example, a quantum computer, artificial intelligence. That is why they talk about nano(N)-bio(B)-info(I)-cogno(C): NBIC-convergence.

Optimists argue that the eve of the "fourth industrial revolution" begins in this border zone, the main feature of which is the introduction of real "intellectual machines" that will almost completely replace a person in the field of low-skilled and even medium-skilled labor, including mental.

The use of these "robots" (some in the form of increasingly complex software) will be accompanied by a sharp increase in labor productivity in areas such as energy efficiency, transportation (for example, robotic machines), healthcare, mass production based on the introduction of 3D printing.

If the current pace of technical and economic development is maintained, the sixth TS will probably take shape more or less before 2025, and enter the phase of maturity in the 2040s.

Hypothetically, already from 2020, when the group of basic innovations of the sixth TU is fully formed, the world economy has a chance to enter the phase of "protracted recovery". Further, from the end of the 2020s - again, hypothetically - accelerated economic growth will become possible already on the basis of the new technical specifications.

However, realists (or "informed" pessimists) warn that it is risky to fall into such "technological idiocy". Remember, they say, that earlier in the transition from one to another TR, in similar border situations, there were great social revolutions, large-scale (pan-European or world) wars and large military conflicts. Now it could happen again, but with potentially much larger and more unfortunate consequences.

Moreover, the transition to a new technological order is not only and not so much a change in the economic and technological paradigm. Such a transition is both a radical transformation of social, ideological, political structures, as well as the emergence of new models of society, more or less adequate to the "sum of new technologies", and the emergence of completely new models of socio-political relationships, and the formation of a radically new type of personality (not necessarily more perfect), etc.

That is, in fact, it is all this that is a real, full-scale systemic revolution, stretched out over fifteen to twenty years. Maybe even longer. If this future revolution, where the current civilization is already being drawn into, is effectively managed, there is a chance to do without a global war. If not, then such a war cannot be avoided.

So, the "Great Depression" of 1929-1933. marked the beginning of not only the transition to a new technological order, but also a radical change from classical "Marxist" capitalism to the model of Roosevelt's "neo-capitalism", based on a sharp increase in government intervention in the economy, forced lending to millions and tens of millions of consumers, the introduction of mass production and mass consumption mechanisms . A fundamentally new model of society arose - "mass society" with its one-dimensional type of a programmed person and a totally trained middle class, a completely new form of state ideological systems reproduced by tightly controlled media, a new structure of international relations. This frontier period included the crisis years of the 1930s, the Second World War, the birth of the Cold War, and ended in the early 1950s.

The essence of the current strategic challenge is as follows. Who exactly, what power, what coalition of countries will most effectively carry out targeted ideological, social, political transformations in order to use the mainstream, the results of the sixth TP, to become a leader and determine the program of global development, perhaps until the end of this century? The success of the transition to the sixth TS will be determined not only and not so much by the volume and scale of scientific and technological innovations introduced into the process of economic reproduction. The key, decisive moment will be the long-term effectiveness of the implementation of systemic changes in the forms of ownership, production and consumption, cardinal transformations of social structures, fundamental shifts in public consciousness and dominant political ideologies, the speed and quality of the restructuring of elites, etc.

The upcoming transition will undoubtedly prove to be qualitatively more complex and risky than previous border periods. For there are a lot of questions that the ideologists and strategists of the sixth TR face and which even the most ingenious computer programs cannot answer yet.

For example, how to find a balance between the ever-increasing flow of scientific and technological innovations of the sixth TR and conservative, inert social and political structures, most of which are already in a state of systemic crisis?

What is the most painless, optimal way to reduce the population of the planet by two or three (at least) times, since the coming innovative and technological civilization does not need such an amount of biomass in human form? After all, the sixth TR, in principle, does not need the mass consumption of material goods for its self-reproduction and self-development, especially given the growing shortage of natural non-renewable resources.
How to radically limit the socio-economic and political influence of the swollen middle class, which was and remains the main driving force of "neo-capitalism", but which is not at all necessary for the realities of the impending sixth TR - at least on such a scale?
What should be the models of interaction between creative human capital, the main driving force of the sixth TR, and the new model of the political elite, which also does not yet exist?

And so it turns out that "our path is in darkness." In conditions of forced growth of strategic uncertainty, no one knows the optimal answers. The frontier period, which we, without realizing it, entered in 2007-2008, is not only the stage of maturation of the sixth TR, but also a time of extraordinary exacerbation of the systemic, largely antagonistic, contradictions of modern "capitalist humanity." That is, as Comrade Mao Zedong taught, this is an extremely favorable time for a real world revolution.

Global labor and capital market

In the past few decades, the strategic will of the highest Western establishment and the totality of achievements in the scientific and technological field have led to the creation of a single functioning global labor and capital market. As you know, the most profitable use of both the first and the second, regardless of the territorial location, equalizes their cost in different geo-economic zones of the planet. This is the main feature of the current global market.

The distinctive feature of such a market, further, is that the flow of technological innovation not only integrates already existing sources of labor and capital, but also creates new ones.

Modern machines, robots are replacing various types of human labor, and much more intensively than ever before. Reproducing themselves, these means of production simultaneously increase the amount of capital. It follows that the economic future is not on the side of those who provide cheap labor or own ordinary capital - they will inevitably be supplanted by automation.

Then it seems that the third group should be lucky - those who are ready to innovate and create new products, services and business models. However, this spontaneously raises a series of provocative questions. For example, how and in what way will a new market environment, adequate consumer demand for these innovations and new products be formed, in the conditions of an objective narrowing of mass demand? If, of course, the preservation of market mechanisms of supply and demand, the balance of power of various socio-economic agents is generally envisaged.

Hypothetically, in the future sixth TR, it is precisely creative, economic and technological ideas that should become a really scarce production factor - more scarce than labor and capital combined. However, who will ultimately determine the prospects of certain ideas? Especially if the traditional market mechanisms for evaluating product creativity (with all their well-known shortcomings) change significantly by the middle of the 21st century and become much more manageable by "non-market methods"?

The new face of capital

In his recently published book "Capital in the 21st Century", which is not by chance a bestseller all over the world, T. Piketty notes that the share of capital in the economy increases when its rate of return exceeds the overall level of economic growth. "Deepening of capital", i.e. cost reduction due to savings in labor, fuel, raw materials and materials will continue until robots, automated systems, computer networks and various forms of software (as modifications of capital) increasingly begin to replace human labor.

The share of "total" capital in the national income has been growing quite steadily over the past two decades, but in the foreseeable future this trend may be threatened due to the emergence of new challenges. This is not about some unexpected jump in the value of labor, but about changes within capital itself. As the sixth TR matures, its special part, digital capital, becomes increasingly important.

As is well known, under market conditions the scarcest means of production are most valued. Accordingly, in an economic environment where capital such as software and robots can be reproduced cheaply, its marginal cost inevitably begins to fall. The more cheap capital that is added, the faster the value of existing capital decreases. Unlike, say, traditional, expensive or super-expensive factories, it is very profitable to introduce additional types of digital capital because it is cheap. Programs can be duplicated and redistributed at virtually zero additional cost.

In other words, digital capital is objectively becoming abundant, by definition it has a low marginal cost and is becoming increasingly important in almost all industries.

It inevitably follows from this that in the coming period, digital technologies and creative people (the core, the most important component of human capital in general), who will be able to generate advanced ideas and innovations using these same digital technologies, will become the most scarce and most valuable resource.

The ability to codify, digitize and replicate many important goods, services and processes is constantly expanding. Digital copies, as an exact reproduction of the original, require virtually no cost and can be instantly transferred to anywhere in the world.

Digital technologies turn ordinary labor and ordinary capital into a commodity, so those who invent, implement and develop them will receive an increasing share of the profit from ideas.

Thousands of individuals with ideas, not millions of investors and tens of millions of ordinary workers, become the scarcest resource. Dramatic and frankly terrible, in its long-term consequences, the fact, however, is that truly creative people, even in developed societies, are no more than 3-4%. Let's assume that all these few percent of "creatives" will be concentrated only in the economic sphere of the future civilization of the sixth TR. And what fate awaits the remaining 95% of non-creative human beings?

Although production is becoming increasingly capital intensive, the returns received by capital owners as a group will not necessarily continue to rise relative to the share of labor. If new means of production create cheap substitutes for more and more types of work, dramatic times are coming for tens and hundreds of millions of wage workers throughout the global world. But at the same time, as digital technologies begin to replace conventional capital, contradictions within the capitalist class itself will inevitably escalate.

The decline in the value of labor

In the past few decades, the historically established ratio in America (as well as in the rest of the OECD countries) between the shares of national income that fall on labor and material capital has changed not in favor of labor. Since the beginning of the new century, this has become even more noticeable. For example, in the United States, "the share of labor averaged 64.3% by the beginning of 2011 compared to the period 1947-2000. Over the past 10 years, this share has fallen even more and reached its lowest level in the third quarter of 2010 - 57, eight%".

The same trend is spreading around the world. Significant declines in the share of labor in GDP are observed in 42 of the 59 countries studied, including China, India and Mexico. Moreover, it turns out that it is the progress of digital technologies that is becoming one of the important prerequisites for this trend: “The fall in the relative price of the means of production associated with the development of information technology and the computer era is forcing companies to move from labor to capital.”

Practically in various spheres, the most cost-effective source of "capital" is becoming "smart technologies" in the form of flexible, adaptive machines, robots, programs that ruthlessly replace labor in both developed and developing countries.

The so-called "reindustrialization" of a number of OECD countries, including the United States (when large corporations return real production to American soil from Southeast Asia), is not due to the fact that the cost of labor in the Asia-Pacific region suddenly increased to a critical level and became unprofitable for companies. Production in automated and robotic factories with a minimum of labor and close proximity to the capacious US market turns out to be more profitable than using even the cheapest labor in Vietnam or the Philippines.

The tragedy of the middle class

Ample evidence proves that the tradable sectors of the industrialized economies have not created jobs on their own for nearly 20 years. This means that work can now be found almost exclusively in the vast non-tradable sector, where wages are steadily declining due to the growing competition of workers forced out of the tradable sector.

Such aspects of the sixth TR as the massive development of robotics, the active use of artificial intelligence, 3D printing, etc., are beginning to hurt not only relatively unskilled workers in developing countries, but also blue collar workers in OECD countries. "Smart machines", becoming cheaper and more sophisticated, will increasingly replace human labor, starting with relatively structured industries (i.e. in factories and factories), and where routine operations predominate.

Moreover, ad hoc macroeconomic forecasting models prove that a similar trend will prevail even in countries where labor is inexpensive. For example, in Chinese factories, where more than a million low-paid workers assemble iPhones and iPads, their labor is increasingly being replaced by diverse and numerous robots. According to official PRC statistics, the number of manufacturing jobs has decreased by 30 million, or 25%, since 1996, while the volume of industrial production has increased by 70%.

Gradually, production moves to where the final market is located. This allows you to reduce costs, reduce delivery times, reduce storage costs and, accordingly, increase profits. Accordingly, the sixth TP in the social aspect will hit the most significantly precisely on the large middle class of economically developed countries. For example, the middle class in the same United States was traditionally considered after the Second World War "the salt of the American soil" - it was the main consumer, the American political system was based on it, it was considered the main custodian of American values ​​and moral norms.

The gradual "lowering" of the American middle class began in the late 1980s. Politically, this was most evident in the shrinking of the once powerful US trade union movement. In economic terms, most of the "middles" are steadily sliding down or have already rolled down to the level of the "poor strata". According to the Gallup Institute, in 2014, 19% of Americans could not earn a decent diet. Currently, 75% of families in the US live paycheck to paycheck without extra money (almost like in today's Russia). Already 29% of American families cannot afford to spend money on higher education for their children. The average credit debt of the average American middle-class household has quadrupled over the past 20 years. Such a family with children (even with one child) can no longer live on one salary. American women are pushed into the labor market not so much by the notorious emancipation with feminization, but by severe economic necessity.
In the United States, being middle class is defined as having your own home. The vast majority of Americans are accustomed to taking "for life" loans for the cost of the house. As a result of the crisis of 2007-08, the real estate bubble burst with its inflated prices. And the American middle class suddenly became significantly poorer - it became impossible to ask for cash loans.

Accordingly, the gap between the middle class sliding into a permanent crisis and the "upper strata" is growing. In 1990, top executives in the US earned, on average, 70 times the wages of other workers. Just 15 years later, in 2005, they were earning 300 times more. Since the late 1970s, 90% of the US population (and this is most of the middle class) has not grown in income, but the heads of corporations have quadrupled their income.

I want to emphasize once again that all this is not a manifestation of the evil will and greed of the bourgeois, but a completely objective, natural process. Today, the higher the market value of a company, the more important it is to find the best manager to lead it. To a large extent, the growth in cash income of top executives is due to the widespread use of information technology, which expands the potential reach, scope and monitoring capabilities of the decision maker, which increases the value of a good top manager. Direct management through digital technologies makes an effective manager more valuable than before, when control functions were distributed among a large number of his subordinates, each of whom followed a certain, small area of ​​​​activity.

And what is happening today in the US is the tomorrow of the entire developed West.

The American experts themselves embarrassingly write that "ensuring an acceptable standard of living for the rest (meaning those tens of millions of the middle class who do not fit into the reality of the sixth TU) and building an inclusive economy and society will be the most pressing challenges in the coming years."

For the formation of such an "inclusive economy" it is necessary to solve, first of all, two main, non-trivial long-term problems.

First, the middle class was the main consumer component of the US market system. Who can replace him in this role and how?

Secondly, this middle class was or was considered a kind of custodian of the traditions of the American "Protestant ethic". The "demoralization" of business and society in the United States is becoming more and more noticeable: the erosion of the work ethic, the growth of corruption, and the increasingly screaming socio-economic inequality. Growing total injustice is becoming one of the hallmarks of the upcoming sixth TR...

All these trends are already affecting the stability of Western society and the Western ruling class. For example, this is manifested in the growing alienation of various social groups and segments from formal government institutions in the United States. Even the most trustworthy public institution, the US Supreme Court, has a trust rating of no more than 12-13%.

Does the American middle class feel its "historical" doom? Yes, at the level of social instincts, this feeling is clearly enhanced. More than two-thirds (71%) of Americans, and this is practically the entire middle class, are convinced that the country is on the wrong track. According to CNN and Opinion Research Corporation, 63% of respondents are pessimistic that their children will live worse than their parents.

This topic has not ceased to excite the minds of people since the end of World War II and the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with atomic bombs.

The Cold War that began then seemed about to escalate into World War III, as a result of which entire continents could be covered with radioactive ash. But this did not happen, and the main participants in the Cold War signed an arms reduction treaty. Then followed the collapse of the socialist camp and the Soviet Union. In fact, the peoples of the USSR lost this war.

Today, against the background of the aggravation of the situation in Europe (Ukrainian), Syria, they are increasingly aware of the threat of an armed one.

In the recently published "White Paper" the People's Republic of China declares the inevitability of a new military clash. The strategy does not talk about specific dates, participants, but directly states the inevitability of the Third World War. In this regard, the Chinese authorities intend to strengthen their armed forces, increase the production of weapons, strengthen forces for possible defense. Thus, the largest country in the world (both in and numerically) recognizes that the world can be interrupted any day by a new global clash that will seem empty compared to the First and Second World Wars.

This cannot alarm the layman, who is used to living in peace and tranquility, who is alien to the carpet bombing of quarters, nights in basements, daily human losses. Our layman is used to plugging into gadgets and TVs every day, watching news and TV shows, while getting ready for work and drinking another portion of coffee. The layman does not want to notice that the global clash has already begun. Already today we are witnesses of a kind of quiet, when, under the curtains of diplomatic conversations and slogans, entire peoples are being exterminated.

Fact: since the end of World War II, peace has not been established on our planet. Wars happen everywhere and all the time. Wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine - this is just a small list of those countries on whose territory monstrous crimes are committed, covered up by some slogans and ideas. We do not take into account that the economic wars launched against us, which include not only sanctions and blockades, but also lending, as a result of which we become dependent on individual financial institutions, information wars, in which human consciousness is rewritten to the needs of war customers way, political, when, against the background of public opinion formed by the information impact, separate political forces come to power, representing not the general population, but business elites - all this is included in the concept of the global Third World War.

We do not understand that our enemy is not the peoples, not zombified by the masses, not people poisoned by the idea, but the oligarchs - the real customers of the mass slaughter. Just imagine how today all sorts of Soros, Rothschilds and Rockefellers who unleashed a war in Ukraine and Syria are rubbing their hands with pleasure. In fact, they crossed all borders a long time ago. With globalization, they have embraced everything and everyone. Our enterprises, resources, our culture and education, our countries and peoples - all this is under the control of a handful of billionaires (both national and international). And here their nationality is not important, their place of residence is not important, but what is important is that with the help of our own media we are being pushed into a global slaughter called the Third World War. And this happens in all countries of the world.

We are drawn into credit bondage, when countries and peoples are doomed to long-term obligations under loan interest. Our lands, resources, enterprises are bought up for green candy wrappers printed by the Fed, which is completely under the control of the oligarchs, who dictate their terms to the whole world. Any IMF, European or Asian banks are nothing more than a gang of oligarchs whose goal is to establish control over countries and peoples, hiding behind beautiful words about help. It is a paradox, but we are even accustomed to the idea that gratitude is needed for help, although this concept itself implies a disinterested action in favor of another subject.

Against the backdrop of the current situation, different conclusions can be drawn. One thing is clear: our capitalist world, so touted by all politicians and the media, has long been rotten. Neither the monarch, nor the aristocracy or the elite, nor all sorts of liberal democrats can save it. It will not collapse on its own as long as we believe in the bright future of the market economy, as long as we believe that the market will settle everything. Yes, it will regulate the population, ie. the time of our birth and death will regulate everything as it is necessary for the customers, but not for us. For the time being, we remain naive people who believe that the division of the world into empires and civilizations is natural, who blindly swallow the idea of ​​"divide and conquer" that is being instilled in us.

That is why, perhaps, the Third World War is inevitable. As well as the fourth, fifth and sixth. We will fight until we wipe everything off the face of the Earth or until we are left with stones and sticks in our hands with hungry stomachs and completely destroyed infrastructure. If we come to our senses and deploy weapons against the warmongers, start a global crusade not against peoples and nations, but against the system, against the oligarchs and pseudo-politicians representing their interests, then we can talk about world peace. Well, it's too early to talk about it.