April 14, 2015
Translated from Russian by Kristina Rus
The US is the linchpin of not only the world economy (accounting for over 30% of global GDP), but also the entire financial system of modern humanity (the dollar is the world’s reserve currency). Because of this they are the largest owners – American citizens and corporations own 55% of all shares in the world. By focusing on developing their key new technological principles within their organizations, the United States became the engine and the main element of all technological progress. Therefore, the crisis, including financial, could become a world crisis only after it will strike the US.
Meanwhile, the solutions providing often decisive influence on the development of humanity are decided by the American government on the basis of only American, and not the world realities and the presumption of “internal” American, and not at all global, universal responsibility. This “imperial provincialism” from the perspective of humanity as a whole makes them objectively inadequate and creates a strategic risk (first, for human civilization, and thereafter for the United States as part of this civilization).
The Rise and Fall of Global Monopolies
The greatness of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher was primarily in the fact that they pacified national monopolies by opening national economies to international competition. This step gave the progress of the US and the UK the impetus that made them leaders of the modern technological development of mankind and the only countries constantly generating new technological solutions in a wide range of industries. Today, however, monopolies have taken a global (and almost unobservable) character – and in principle there is no competition, which could tap the global economy with “old recipes” (except with aliens). Therefore, there are virtually no more barriers to stop the decay of the global monopolies (especially if they rely on meta-technology, in principle excluding the possibility of competition with their developers). And the decay of global monopolies – is a global crisis.
Soros, in his apocalyptic predictions, by his own admission completely missed the significance of technological progress (in the midst of the Internet boom!) and state regulation, as well as the Boeing Corporation, which, faced with the increasing imperfection of their machines and the actual disappearance of the spirit of creativity (Lenin would call it “bureaucratizing”), was going to solve these problems by proclaiming the main new element of their strategy : finessing the repair and maintenance service.
The development of information technologies and the increasing importance of the “knowledge economy” in general has led to an equally explosive growth of the value of “personal risk”: the accidental death of an intellectual leader of a global monopoly, from which he is not immune as any man, capable of inflicting a severe blow not just to the stock prices of his corporation, but to all global markets. After the correction of the U.S. stock market, which occurred in April 2000, the stability of world markets has increased, while the importance of “personal risk”, respectively decreased. However, in general, the probability of such a development is the greater, the longer there is no similar misfortune.
The spread of technologies of consciousness formation and a dramatic rise in their effectiveness (including commercial) over conventional technology creates a steadily growing temptation to solve real problems in society by “brainwashing” – the adjustment of consciousness, and not the real world. This can make (and, indeed, already does) inadequate not just separate control structures, but all of mankind as a whole (especially considering that “brainwashing” is inevitably accompanied by self-programming, that is, the “brain-washer” himself begins to believe in his own propaganda). The joke about the lieutenant who marches on his own, can unexpectedly become a description of the normal state of every thinking person on our planet.
There is a possibility of destructive computer warfare in that case, if a virus will be created, or will arise as part of a natural evolution, physically destroying computers after copying itself to all of associated networks. The actual result will be the inability to use the Internet (and considering “the infection”, one can predict with high probability the infection by the “killer-virus” of internal national networks, vigorously developed in recent times in the United States) and, accordingly, a drastic slowdown of technological progress, and in a number of critical industries – a significant technological degradation.
Among the most significant factors that can lead to a global crisis, is a wide dissemination of the so-called “closing” technologies, so named because their use will make a huge amount of widespread production practices obsolete and, consequently, increase unemployment. Classic examples of such technology existing already today is the technology of strengthening rails (which can lead to a threefold reduction in their global demand and to a corresponding reduction of their production) and the technology of wireless power transmission (created in the early twentieth century by electrician N. Tesla, able to destroy all the industries related to electricity transmission, energy and deprive the electric companies of the benefits associated with natural monopolies).
To date, the “closing” technology is mostly concentrated within the “Red Star” corporation, as similar technologies were not pursued in developed countries in principle – because of their risk to market mechanisms (market economy is more economic then the socialist one and, unlike it, did not allow its employees to work “into the table” by developing designs that are not able to find a quick application) an were partially securely blocked by patent mechanisms. In fact, the destruction of the Soviet Union can be seen as a collective burial of all these technologies representing a mortal danger for the developed world – a kind of “weapons of mass destruction” of progress – in one giant burial ground.
The massive release of “closing” technologies to world markets and their almost inevitable integration will cause a sharp contraction of the existing industry, which will lead to disastrous consequences for the majority of developed and developing countries.
This will benefit only the countries that are either in post- (like USA and possibly the UK) or pre-industrial stage of development – during the first phase of the spread of “closing” technologies mass reduction of production will not occur there, and they will receive additional advantage due to a sharp weakening of the industrial world.
One of the ways, spontaneously used by the American society to defend from the danger of ethnic disintegration, as it can be understood, is the tolerant attitude towards drug abuse, contributing to the maintenance of the unity of the nation by artificially holding back the progress of its most threatening elements – African-American, Hispanic and Chinese ethnic groups. Due to social reasons and peculiarities of national psychology they end up being the major drug consumers.
As a result, the import and domestic production of drugs is the equivalent of a weapon of selective ethnic application, helping slow the buildup of internal differentiation and centrifugal tendencies in the development of American society due to the inhibition of its “insufficiently American” elements.
An additional function of drugs is “social selection”, the destruction of undesirable elements in the society as a whole, inadequately managed due to lack of culpability to the official propaganda (including in part about the harm from drugs).
The time extension (more reminiscent of “an era extension”), provided by this and many other, less shocking “social stabilizers”, is seen in a comparison of quantitative estimates of various experts of different years.
Soviet scientists, in the 80’s using actually now lost techniques of mathematical analysis and quantitative estimates of processes of social development, assessed the elections of 2000-2004 as critical to the integrity of American society. The principal rationale for these predictions is proven by the obvious marginality of two of the three current candidates for Vice-President: one – an Orthodox Jew, the other – a female African-American from the perspective of the “big politics”, but most importantly – the schism in American society during the elections, unprecedented since the civil war between North and South: African Americans, Hispanic community, Jews and financiers voted for Gore voted; whites engaged in manufacturing and high technology voted for Bush.
No wonder Bush has declared the restoration of the unity of the nation as his main objective. However, the obvious prematurity of Soviet forecasts was caused by the lack of any ideas about the described stabilizers. (Strictly speaking, this explains the error, but in any case does not justify it: it appears that forecasters did not ask themselves a natural question about the possible reactions of society and, especially, the state, to the threat, inevitably perceived at least by their most progressive elements).
A logical error often lies in understanding the national wealth solely in its physical, material and therefore quantifiable terms. It’s amusing that analysts in developed countries in fact repeat the mistake of stringent Marxists half-a-century-old, who believed that value is created exclusively by the production of physical goods, but not at all by providing services. As consistently and inexplicably, as the Marxists ignoring the costs of services, modern analysts ignore the cost of new emerging technologies and technological principles.
The US dollar is backed not by national wealth of the country in the traditional sense of the word – it is backed by continually created new technological principles. These principles don’t just have a cost as goods sold. Their main value is that they “tie” the economies of almost all countries in the world to the American economy, ensuring their dependence not in financial but on a more fundamental technological level. This “technological imperialism” is supplemented by “information imperialism”. The beauty of information technologies is that they back the dollar not so much by the fact of their existence, as material goods possessing a value, but by the fact of their application, transforming the collective consciousness in the direction, needed by the US. Today – this is the key to understanding the power of the United States. To them the words spoken by Boris Pasternak about Lenin perfectly apply: “He managed the flow of thought and thus the country.” Information technologies make the most effective management of not the real processes, but “the flow of thought” of those who control them. Competitiveness, and world leadership of the USA stem from this factor.
After all, currencies are not provided by gold, but by goods, that is, in the end by public relations. Information technologies allow to create these relationships directly, bypassing the commodity stage. Therefore, the mechanical calculations of the dollar standing are, in fact, useless, and nothing more than an exercise in arithmetic.
America’s strength is not in tanks, not in the gold reserves and not even in Bill Gates. America’s strength is primarily in Hollywood and CNN, and more specifically, in the iceberg of advanced information technologies, of which they are the visible part. This is the answer to the eternal question of the dollar security. It is provided not by the gold in Fort Knox, but the state of minds in the world. And their state, in turn, is stably maintained in the desired form due to the enormous technological separation of the USA from the rest of the world, including even the developed countries (in other words – the strength of America is that most people in the world believe in America as a global leader). The leadership is not only in the unique ability to produce fundamentally new technological principles on a massive scale and across multiple sectors and not even in a tremendous leap from the rest of the world in the most important management technologies.
The most important are the practical monopolization of technologies of consciousness formation (the so-called “high-hume”), and meta-technology – a new type of technology, the use of which in principle excludes the possibility of competition. It is a kind of a fee for admission to higher efficiency provided by these technologies, previously only existing in dealer and licensing systems. Modern cutting-edge technology in an explicit or implicit form put the user in the position of a licensee. Here are the most obvious examples of meta-technology.
The dispersal of its memory throughout the network gives the developer all user information and allows the first to interfere in the activities of the latter or even manage it. The principle of external control of a computer connected to a network has been already played out. Under the current US law all software produced in the USA has “loopholes” that allow U.S. intelligence agencies to gain unauthorized access to information stored in it and even modify it in cases where it is found to comply with the U.S. national interest).
Modern communication technologies
Allow to intercept all telephone messages in the world and to comprehensively analyze them in an almost “online” mode (the famous American system “Echelon”, a limp scandal around it has dragged on for at least five years); in the near future it will be possible to intercept and full process the entire volume of messages on the Internet.
Various organizational technologies
– Management technology, based on culture and system of values of the developer-country, reduce the competitiveness of corporations from other cultures (it should be noted that in the general the spread of an alien culture in a society without integrating with the host culture and therefore not so much enriching it, as much as remaining isolated from it, weakens the competitiveness of a given society).
– Technology of formation of mass consciousness, the use of which without timely development of updated “antidote” technologies in certain societies, which first appear in the leader-country, and then are replicated in other countries, leads to the gradual or rapid loss of state control over the mass consciousness of societies, originally applying these technologies for “their” purposes. Today the latter types of technologies are dominant because of their superior performance. They rapidly spread literally over recent years, became the technological component of the information society. Speaking about it from the point of view of technology, we may not be aware of their meta-technology features, that provide the basis of modern economic and political power in the United States.
The described strategic technological superiority of the U.S. is implemented in practice using not formally related to each other, but in reality forming a single unit financial and information leverage, managed by repeatedly ridiculed, but nevertheless the most efficient bureaucracy in the world, turning the process of self-improvement (in particular, the process of improvement of public administration) into a continuous process, not hindering the surgical implementation of routine daily functions.
USA effectively secures their interests in the global competition with the help of a number of formally independent international organizations, where they play a dominant role. In military-political terms, this would include NATO, in economic – IMF, WTO and to a lesser extent – the World Bank. The control of the United States over the IMF, as vividly demonstrated by Russia’s negotiations with the organization in 1998-1999, is almost absolute in nature and is provided not so much by the size of the US contribution towards the base capital of this organization, but the composition of its top leadership.
America has never accepted help from anyone. What kind of a superpower is it, if someone in the world can lend it at least some support!
The decision making system in America is significantly less centralized than in Russia. And, of course, American politicians focus more on the moods and demands of society. However, one cannot understate the opposite effect on the formation of these attitudes and demands of society. So here we have a system more closed rather than traditional in understanding of democracy of subordination of politicians to the society, which is a kind of objective and non-objectionable derivative of business power or the power of politicians. But, nevertheless, the American bureaucracy, as in any other country, has a specific set of capabilities. Although from the point of view of self-perception, the acceptance of any help, even able to save the lives of dozens of people, would be a mistake. This would challenge the perception of exclusivity of a nation.