Discussions about whether the current crisis "last" in the framework of the current financial, economic, political or geopolitical paradigm or not, often occur in our time and in the expert and the public literature and in the media. We have, as you know, on this account has its own world view that we have expressed many times, but this view has a very severe drawback: it can not be verified. Our theory of the crisis in that part, which describes the current actions, while still seriously wrong, but to prove that it is true heralds the future, it is impossible — what is obviously enjoyed by our critics. In general, this applies to all other theories of the future, including those who say that at some point everyone will return "to normal."
In any case, remember that our theory, which is a natural extension of scientific logic on the strip "Adam Smith — Karl Marx — Rosa Luxemburg", says that the modern paradigm of economic development based on the deepening division of labor, can no longer continue, as requested extensive expansion of markets. Roughly speaking, the essence of it is that the deepening division of labor gives a gain in the production of the 1st product due to an increase in their number: costs decrease with increasing scale. Since now the ability of extensive expansion of markets have been exhausted, the future development within the existing paradigm is unrealistic.
Most likely, this situation is exacerbated by the expense of the paradox of postmodernism (PM) who made use of the society, which can not exist without much larger than its size periphery, living in the ordinary modern (industrial society). With all of this increase in consumption in the growth of the PM asks the periphery (which sucked out of resources), which is unrealistic, as unreal and bring society back to the PM Nouveau. In other words, return, which reclaims sharp decline in living standards, will inevitably lead to social and political collapse.
It is clear that the representatives of the PM said such an approach does not like it, it is clear that all the power of his own hundreds and thousands of institutions, research organizations, professionals, and the funds they fall on all other theories and … losing the ideological war. Well, more precisely, began to lose in recent years. This naturally raises the developers of other theories bout of optimism, but all the same I would like to get a real signs of self-righteousness.
We have something more or less perfectly, as predicted for many years crisis has raised our authority, but we — all the same economists, in other words, real passionate about current issues (do not confuse us with the followers ekonomiksizma, a clear lesson that it would be more correct to refer to "psevdoekonomicheskim modeling"). And what philosophers, sociologists, and other representatives of the least exact sciences? And here I offer some argument which, I think that is totally harsh.
If we have a look at the development of the world's population, we see that the last 2000 years, the world has always been people who offered the world some universal recipes awareness of happiness and justice. Note that I currently have in mind exactly who headed for a proper comprehension of great success, not individual maniacs. We all remember that in the twentieth century, these models were at least two, and only to the end of the century one of them was obviously to win. But this model, the liberal West, still continued to insist that it is entitled to impute to all its rules and values.
I will not at this time go into the features of this model, since the purpose of my current text is not that. We are talking about something else — that the other model now is not there. Neither our homeland, neither China nor Islam is not now offered to all new and different rules. Well, more precisely, Islam, perhaps suggests, but does not quite heartily, as, in fact, it does not represent a real war West. And it is clear why: it is not visible, both on the basis of Islam can be built or at least keep the industrial society, and in fact he specifically Islamic current favorites have their incomes and abilities.
And if the West for some reason refuses to own most important task for the imputation of values and rules of the game, it is inevitable constructive change world, since no more connecting thread between the different parts of the world is not there. We note that our theory that this step is inevitable, but, as I read, the evidence of our innocence yet. And that's what thinks about the West itself …
Before answering this question, I will say a few words. Raising the question, first described the text more carefully described in our theory of global projects, but it says nothing about when and how will a change of the dominant project, as well as states and not on that, and whether there is now the world's population in general without global projects. Although this issue now seems to me very fascinating.
And now back to the question. Not so long ago, the State Council issued a U.S. intelligence report, "Global Trends 2030: the Other Worlds," in which U.S. intelligence agencies predicted the decline of the economies of the most advanced countries of the world, world domination in the hands of the hacker groups and race kibervooruzheny. In connection with this report, I can only note that in virtually all scenarios considered in it, consider the option of polycentric world. In practice this means that the leading U.S. analysts do not see now lead the country in the long term as a possible scenario.
There are different options for how this can happen. This refusal of the Western elite leadership, as did the Soviet elite, and it is impossible to maintain this leadership for purely economic reasons, as stated in our theory, In the end, it simply decay USA. Note that on a theoretical level, there is nothing stopping all these elements realized almost immediately … But from the standpoint of the head of the philosophical output result is still the same: the latest in the world power that tries to offer all global "rules of the game", is coming out of the arena.
I do not know, well it's either bad, but I do understand that this is — fundamentally changing all the basic criterion for the existence of mankind. In this sense, the process reads that, most likely, the creators of the "hard" in relation to the current model of development theories are true.