According to the Russian Dictionary of Foreign Words, “pole – is the tip of the imaginary earth’s axis: the south pole and the north pole” [1]. Geometrically there can only be two poles; geography is based on this. But not modern geopolitics, where the concept of a multipolar (multipolar) world is emerging. Having made this terminological clarification, in the future we will use the concept of multipolar world with caution, based on its different interpretations by different thinkers.

Changing poles of the world economy as the world economic order changes

In the context of the long cycle theory of global socio-economic development [2] developed by the author, we understand the pole as a country whose ruling elite exerts a decisive influence on the development of the world economy. By presenting this process as a change of world economic modes (WEM), we can infer a regularity of periodic change of world economic poles. At the same time, there cannot be less than two poles (the old and the new IU) during the period of IU change. At the end of this transition period, global dominance passes to the country that forms the core of the new IU.

This is how Arrighi envisioned the development of the world capitalist economy [3], which he divided into five secular systemic cycles of capital accumulation: Spanish-Genovese, Dutch, English and American, now superseded by the Asian cycle. During the five centuries of capitalism, the Spanish-Genovese, Dutch, English and American ruling elites, now superseded by the Chinese communists, have succeeded each other as the decisive driving force in the development of the world economy. With the exception of the first cycle, in which Genoese capital formed the financial basis for the rapid expansion of the Spanish Empire, all others were characterized by the dominance of a single country whose relations of production and institutions served as an example for others. Over time, their efficiency declined and a new leader emerged on the periphery with qualitatively more efficient production relations and institutions. Global dominance was transferred to him as a result of a world war, which the outgoing leader employed against his main competitors to maintain world hegemony, without noticing the emergence of a new IU with its own geo-economic pole.

The secular systemic cycles of capital accumulation discovered by Arrighi represent the respective epochs of development of the world capitalist system. They differ significantly not only in the leading countries, but also in the systems of managing economic reproduction and development. To study them, the author introduced the concept of world economic order (WEO), defined as a system of interrelated international and national institutions that provide for the expanded reproduction of the economy and determine the mechanism of global economic relations [4]. The institutions of the leading country, which have a dominant influence on the international institutions that regulate the world market and international trade, economic and financial relations, are of primary importance. They also serve as a model for periphery countries, which try to catch up with the leader by importing the institutions imposed by it. Therefore, the institutional system of the world economy permeates the reproduction of the entire world economy in the unity of its national, regional and international components.

The systemic cycle of capital accumulation is a form of the life cycle of the world economic order. The capital accumulation cycles of the Spanish-Genovese, Dutch, English, American and later Asian centuries described by Arrighi are manifestations of the life cycles of trade, trade-manufacturing, colonial, imperial and integral WEM, respectively. They differ so much in their management systems of reproduction and economic development that the transition from one to the other has so far taken place by means of world wars and social revolutions, during which the obsolete management system was crushed and the victorious country formed a new one.

World economic modes differ not only in the type of organization of international trade, but also in the system of productive relations and institutions, which enable the leading countries to achieve global superiority and shape the regime of international trade and economic relations. The classification of world economic models is determined by the institutional systems of the leading countries that dominate international economic relations and form the core of the world economic system. At the same time, other, less efficient and even archaic institutional systems of organizing national and regional economies can be reproduced at its periphery. The relations between the core and the periphery of the world economic system are characterized by non-equivalent foreign economic exchanges in favor of the core, whose countries receive super-profits at the expense of technological, economic and organizational superiority in the form of intellectual and monopoly rents, business income and emissions, respectively. Therefore, the core countries constitute the center of the world economy that dominates international economic relations and determines global socio-economic development.

The logic of geopolitical competition in the capitalist world system conditions a country’s dominance within the life cycle of one or another IU. This is related to the role of legislation and national sovereignty in ensuring the expanded reproduction of capital. National sovereignty provides the ruling elite with unlimited capital accumulation through reliance on the national credit and banking system and the issuance of national currency, various instruments of national market protection, and judicial protection of property rights. Although international treaties may provide rules for the protection of property rights and foreign investors, in practice the guarantee of compliance depends heavily on the balance of countries’ geopolitical influence. National armed forces have often been the decisive argument for resolving geopolitical disputes.

Since the Westphalian system, which paved the way for the acquisition of national sovereignty by states, no supranational or interstate structures, close in efficiency to the national systems of economic reproduction and capital accumulation of the most powerful countries, have been established internationally until now. Even if countries are civilly close, the various coalitions and alliances among them are incomparably less strong than the institutions that bind the economic relations of economic agents within sovereign states. The more powerful they are, the more opportunities the corresponding national elites have to realize their interests in international relations, including enrichment on non-equivalent foreign economic exchanges, exploitation of natural wealth and human capital of relatively weak states whose elites are unable to guarantee national sovereignty.

The direct correlation between the power of nation-states and the possibilities of capital accumulation at the expense of non-equivalent foreign economic exchanges generates an increasing wave of strengthening of country power leading to the formation of new WEMs. The country’s ruling elite constantly builds its power by using the superiority of its state to maximize profits in international economic relations. This is the way the capitalist world system is evolving, with the center moving successively from northern Italy to Spain, the Netherlands, Britain and the United States. At the same time, states that have lost their leadership have been relegated to the periphery and, conversely, new leaders have arisen from the periphery.

The life cycle of the UI consists of phases of material and financial expansion. In the first phase, thanks to the super-efficient management system, the country, which forms the core of the new UI, breaks through in a long wave of growth of the new technological mode, modernizing the economy on its basis. At that time, the core countries of the old WEM are plunging into a structural crisis and depression caused by excessive concentration of capital in the obsolete productions of the former technological mode. They try to maintain hegemony by any means, even fomenting a world war between competitors. Their mutual weakening creates additional opportunities for the country’s economic breakthrough that forms the core of the new IU. As a result, it seizes global leadership, which it steadily builds to a dominant position. Thus, the Netherlands achieved global dominance after the Spanish-British War, Britain after the Napoleonic Wars, and the United States after World Wars I and II. Currently, the global hybrid war unleashed by the United States is objectively facilitating the economic assertion of China, which forms the core of the new IU.

By gaining global dominance, in the second phase of the WEM life cycle, the core country gains the opportunity to impose its own terms of international economic-financial exchange on others, up to and including the use of its own currency, financial institutions, foreign trade and transportation infrastructure. In this phase of financial expansion, the domination of the core country of an already mature IU is transformed into a global hegemony, sustained by super-profits from the exploitation of peripheral resources through non-equivalent trade, world price manipulation, capital compression and brain drain. The downside of this hegemony is a growing public debt and a decline in the productivity of the economy, in which financial speculation becomes preferable to productive investment. The IU is entering the final phase of its life cycle, which coincides with the emergence of a new IU at the periphery of the world system with an order of magnitude more efficient system of reproduction and management of economic development.

This analysis shows that the capitalist world system is unipolar during the period of maturity of the IU and multipolar during the period of change of the IU. During the period of formation of the new UI, one or more of its core countries emerge, competing both with the outgoing hegemonic country and with each other. As a result of this competition, a global leader emerges and steadily increases its dominance. Besides them, there is also Russia, which maintains its global influence in various political forms throughout the period under consideration, whose historical role Arrighi has completely ignored.

Russia as an independent pole of global influence

Throughout the era of capitalism, beginning, according to Arrighi, with the Genoese-Spanish systemic cycle of the century of capital accumulation, Russia acted as an independent pole of global influence. The outgoing imperial UI was bipolar, with the U.S. and the USSR each controlling one-third of the world economy and the remaining one-third being the terrain of rivalry. In the colonial IMU that preceded it, the Russian Empire successfully confronted the British Empire, controlling most of Eurasia, Alaska, and the North Pacific. In the commercial-manufacturing UI, Russia underwent Peter the Great’s modernization, effectively catching up with the then world-leading Netherlands in terms of technological development and surpassing the scale of production. Ivan the Terrible’s Moscow Empire, which had inherited the traditions of the Byzantine Empire and part of the territory of the Horde Empire, was certainly not inferior in power to the Spanish Empire, with which it had no contradictions.

Thus, at least from the 17th century onward, Russia constituted an independent global pole of influence that existed parallel to the competing and later WEM core countries in the West. Here we do not examine the earlier period, which is covered by the darkness of historical falsifications obscuring Russia’s (Rus’) global influence during the Horde and Byzantine periods. Our analysis covers only the well-documented period from the 17th century to the present, which tracks the pace of change in global economic and technological patterns. The patterns identified on the basis of this analysis allow us to make a reliable prediction of the changing poles of world economic development up to the end of this century. What remains unclear is the prognosis for the role of Russia, which has remained an independent pole of global development, shifting in parallel with the changing WEM poles of the Western world system.

Since the Great Troubles and the rise of the Romanovs, Russia has been involved in a complex and contradictory relationship with European states, which at different times have been sometimes allies and sometimes adversaries. Russia is seen by the latter as a reactionary force preventing the processes of liberalization of socio-productive relations and democratization of state and political systems. The ruling elites of European states fear Russia and periodically unite against it, seeking to crush and dismember it. Since the emergence of the colonial WEM and British world hegemony, Russia has always been seen as a pole of world influence in opposition to the West.

For their part, Russian state leaders have regarded the changing poles of the Western world system as an ally and a partner, then as an adversary and an enemy, then as a master and then as a learner. Centuries of systemic cycles of capital accumulation affected Russia as a periphery rather than a center, until the USSR stopped participating in this process. And now the West is trying to take away from Russia all that it has accumulated. It must be said that the Russian ruling elite has not developed a definite attitude toward the West. The debate between Westerners and Slavophiles continues to this day. While the former attribute Russia’s special position to its backwardness and advocate overcoming it through integration with the West, the latter see Russia’s special mission in saving humanity from the threats posed by liberalism, capitalism and post-humanism entrenched in the West. This argument is now irrelevant because of the anti-Russian aggression of the collective West, which essentially ends the half-century era of its global dominance and with it the capitalist era. The center of the world economy is shifting to Southeast Asia, where its poles of global influence are emerging

The poles of the new economic order

The ongoing change in the WEM is taking place in full accordance with the patterns of the process identified earlier [5]. It began with the collapse of the USSR and now ends with the disintegration of the Pax Americana. In full accordance with the theory of maintaining its global hegemony, the U.S. ruling elite has unleashed a world war in an attempt to crush or chaotic the countries it cannot control: China, Russia, Iran. It cannot win it, however, because of the qualitatively superior efficiency of the Chinese system of government. The U.S. has already lost a trade and economic war against China, which will achieve technological sovereignty and first place in the world in terms of scientific and technological capability by the end of the current five-year plan. With the seizure of Russian foreign exchange reserves, Washington has undermined confidence in the dollar and is rapidly losing its hegemony in the monetary sphere. At the same time, China is becoming the world’s largest investor. Chinese investments in One Belt, One Road (OBOR) countries exceed funding for the much-publicized American Indo-Pacific Future Image initiative by an order of magnitude. The scale of this project pales in comparison to the JCPOA, which is expected to disburse between $4 trillion and $8 trillion according to various estimates. OPOP’s investment portfolio also eclipses the Marshall Plan to finance the postwar reconstruction of Western Europe, which at today’s dollar value can be estimated at $180 billion ($12 billion 70 years ago) [6].

After the collapse of the USSR, the American ruling elite rushed to declare final victory and “the end of history” [7]. However, this euphoria ended with the global financial crisis of 2008, which marked the limit of the American secular cycle of capital accumulation. The era of U.S. global dominance lasted somewhat longer than that of Britain after the end of World War I, which ended with the financial crisis of 1929. The Great Depression and World War II that followed buried the British Empire, unable to compete with the higher-order governance systems of the USSR and the U.S., forming the two poles of imperial UI, which replaced the colonial one.

In all macroeconomic indicators, the PRC has already surpassed the United States. Almost unscathed by the global recession of the past decade, China supplanted Japan as the world’s second largest economy in August 2010. In 2012, with $3.87 trillion worth of imports and exports, China surpassed the United States as the world’s second largest economy. The PRC surpassed the United States with total foreign trade turnover of $3.82 trillion, ousting it from the position it had held for 60 years as the world leader in cross-border trade. At the end of 2014, China’s gross domestic product, measured in purchasing power parity, was $17.6 trillion, surpassing that of the United States ($17.4 trillion), the world’s largest economy since 1872 [8].

China is becoming a global engineering and technology hub. China’s share of the global engineering and scientific workforce reached 20 percent in 2007. The percentage of Chinese engineers and scientists in the world reached 20 percent in 2007, doubling since 2000 (1,420,000 and 690,000 respectively). Interestingly, many of them have returned to the PRC from Silicon Valley in the United States, playing an important role in the rise of innovative entrepreneurship in China. By 2030, the world’s engineering and scientific workforce is expected to be 15 million, of which 4.5 million (30 percent) will be scientists, engineers and technicians from the PRC [9]. By 2030. 9] By 2030, China will lead the world in terms of S&T spending and account for 25% of its share of global spending [10].

Between 2000 and 2016, China’s share of global publications in physical sciences, engineering and mathematics quadrupled, surpassing that of the United States. In 2019, the PRC surpassed the United States in patent activity (58,990 versus 57,840). Not only at the macro level, but also at the micro level, Chinese companies are outperforming U.S. innovation leaders. For example, for the third year in a row, China’s Huawei Technologies Company, with 4,144 patents, far surpassed the U.S.-based Qualcomm (2,127 patents).

China leads the world in mobile payments, while the United States ranks sixth. In 2019, the volume of such transactions in China was $80.5 trillion. The total projected volume of mobile payments in the PRC is $111 trillion and in the United States $130 billion. This would seem to indicate that most U.S. money issuance is tied up in speculative financial market circuits without reaching end consumers.

The share of the dollar in international payments is rapidly declining, while that of the renminbi is steadily increasing. At the same time, the continued growth of the U.S. public debt pyramid and the trillion-dollar financial derivatives bubbles (which have doubled since the 2008 financial crisis and leave no doubt about the imminent collapse of the U.S. financial system) on a shrinking income base.

The more than fourfold growth in the monetary base after 2008 did not translate into a recovery of the U.S. economy, as most of the money supply went to inflating financial bubbles. China, on the other hand, has achieved a much larger monetization of the economy while increasing investment in real sector development and creating much more efficient reproductive circuits of capital accumulation.

The reasons for the PRC’s superior performance lie in the institutional structure of the new WEM, which ensures qualitatively more efficient management of economic development. By combining the institutions of central planning and market competition, the new world economic order demonstrates a quantum leap in the efficiency of socio-economic development management compared to the world order systems that preceded it: the Soviet one, with directive planning and total statism, and the American one, dominated by the financial oligarchy and transnational corporations. This is evidenced not only by China’s record economic growth rate over the past three decades, but also by its rise to the forefront of scientific and technological progress. It is also demonstrated by the progress in the development of other countries using the institutions of an integrated world order: Japan before the artificial suspension of its rise by the Americans with a sharp revaluation of the yen; South Korea before the Asian economic crisis caused by the U.S. financial oligarchy in 1998; modern Vietnam, which in many ways is copying the Chinese experience; India, which is implementing the democratic model of the new world order; and Ethiopia, which is experiencing record growth rates with the active participation of Chinese investors.

Regardless of the dominant form of ownership – state, as in China or Vietnam, or private, as in Japan or Korea – the integrated world economic order is characterized by a combination of institutions of state planning and market self-organization, state control over the main parameters of economic reproduction and free enterprise, ideology of the common good and private initiative. At the same time, the forms of political structure may differ substantially-from the largest Indian democracy to the largest Chinese Communist Party. What remains unchanged is the priority of public interests over private ones, expressed in strict mechanisms of personal responsibility of citizens for conscientious behavior, clear fulfillment of their duties, respect for the law and service to national goals. The socio-economic development management system is built on the mechanisms of personal responsibility to improve the welfare of society.

Thus, based on the most likely outcome of the global hybrid war unleashed by the U.S. ruling elite not in its favor, the new world economic order will be formed in the competition between communist and democratic varieties, the outcomes of which will be determined by their relative effectiveness in developing opportunities and neutralizing threats from the new technological order. The main competition between the communist and democratic variants of the new world economic order will likely develop between China and India, leaders of the current pace of economic development, which together with their satellites claim a good half of the global economy. This competition will be peaceful and regulated by international law. All aspects of this regulation, from controlling global security to issuing world currencies, will be based on international treaties. Countries that reject international commitments and monitoring will be marginalized in their respective fields of international cooperation. As the world economy becomes more complex, the restoration of the importance of national sovereignty and the diversity of national systems of economic regulation will be combined with the fundamental importance of international organizations with supranational powers.

The competition between communist and democratic variants of an integrated world economy will not be antagonistic. For example, China’s “One Belt, One Road” initiative, with its ideology of a “common destiny for humanity,” involves many countries with different political arrangements. Democratic EU countries are establishing free trade zones with communist Vietnam. The competitive landscape will be determined by the comparative efficiency of national governance systems.

The further development of the global financial crisis will be objectively accompanied by a strengthening of the PRC and a weakening of the United States. As Dr. Wang Wen rightly points out, “the global community sees China growing and the United States shrinking on the parameters of international investment, mergers and acquisitions, logistics, and currency. Globalization is becoming less Americanized and more sinosized” [11].

In the course of this transformation, countries on the periphery of the U.S.-centric financial system, including the EU and Russia, will be significantly affected. The only question is the extent of these changes. Under favorable circumstances, the Great Stagnation of Western economies, which has been going on for more than a decade, will last for a few more years, until the remaining capital, after the bursting of financial bubbles, is invested in new technological industries and can “ride” the new Kondratieff long wave. In case of unfavorable events, the monetary pumping of the financial system will cause galloping inflation, leading to a disruption of economic reproduction, a decline in living standards and a political crisis. The ruling elite in the United States will be faced with two options. The first would be to accept the loss of global dominance and, instead of forming a world government, negotiate investment terms with nation-states, as in the last century. This would allow it to participate as a major player in the formation of a new world economic order. The second is to escalate the global hybrid war they are already waging. And even if they objectively do not win this war, the damage to humanity could be catastrophic, even to the point of being lethal.

The destruction of the reproductive system of the U.S. cycle of capital accumulation will accelerate as the countries exploited by the U.S. ruling elite get out of their control.

If we again resort to the historical analogies of the previous period of change in world economic patterns, its final phase (analogy-World War II) can last up to seven years. So far, these analogies have been surprisingly confirmed. The first transitional phase, which coincides with the last phase of the life cycle of the current world order, began with perestroika in the USSR in 1985 and ended with its collapse in 1991. In the previous cycle it began with World War I in 1914 and ended in 1918 with the collapse of four European monarchies, preventing the global expansion of British capital.

A second transitional phase followed, during which the world-dominant country reached the height of its power. After the end of World War I, British hegemony asserts itself for two decades, until the Treaty of Munich, which marks the beginning of World War II. In this transitional phase the outgoing world economy reaches the limits of its evolution, while at its periphery the core of a new world economy emerges. In the previous cycle it emerged in three political forms: socialist in the USSR, capitalist in the U.S. and national-corporatist in Japan, Italy and Germany. Now it is also emerging in three political formats: socialism with Chinese specificity, Indian democratic nationalism and the global dictatorship of the globalists, who have pulled the trigger to intensify the world hybrid war by launching a coronavirus. Like last time, this phase took two decades, starting with the collapse of the USSR and the temporary establishment of Pax Americana in 1991.

Finally, the third and final transition phase is associated with the destruction of the core of the dominant IOU and the formation of a new one, whose core constitutes the new center of world economic development. In this phase, the leading country of the outgoing IU wages a world war to maintain its hegemony, following which the countries of the new IU win and world leadership passes to them. In the last cycle, this phase begins with the Treaty of Munich in 1938 and ends with the collapse of the British Empire in 1948. If the Nazi coup in Kiev, the de facto occupation of Ukraine, and the imposition of financial sanctions against Russia are considered the beginning of the U.S. global hybrid war, then the final phase of the current transition period begins in 2014 and is expected to end in 2024. As predicted by Pantin, who anticipated the 2008 global financial crisis, it is in 2024 that the peak of U.S. aggression against Russia should be expected. It should be noted that this year is also the year of the change in the Russian political cycle in relation to the presidential elections.

Let us consider in more detail a historical analogy of the earlier change in the world economy that began with the dragging of the leading countries into World War I. After the socialist revolution in Russia, the prototype of a new world economy with communist ideology and total state planning emerged. A decade and a half later, to overcome the Great Depression, the United States implements the New Deal, forming another kind of new world economic order with welfare state ideology and state-monopolistic regulation of the economy. In parallel, Japan, Italy and then Germany form a third type, with Nazi ideology and a state-private corporate economy.

All these changes occur during the final period of the British cycle of capital accumulation and the underlying colonial world economy. The British ruling elite, which occupies a central position in the world economic system, seeks to resist the changes that are undermining its global dominance. An economic blockade is imposed against the USSR, from which only grain can be imported to cause mass starvation. A trade embargo is imposed against the United States. An anti-communist Nazi coup is fostered in Germany, and to counter the influence of the USSR, British intelligence protects and promotes Hitler to power. With the same intentions and in anticipation of large dividends, American companies invest heavily in the modernization of German industry [12].

The British are engaging in the traditional geopolitics of divide and rule by provoking a war between Germany and the USSR. They hope to repeat the success achieved with the outbreak of World War I, preceded by London’s provocation of an attack on Russia by Japan. World War I led to the self-destruction of all of Britain’s main rivals in Eurasia: the Russian, German, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and, finally, Chinese empires. But soon after the outbreak of World War II, the qualitative superiority of the Third Reich over all European countries, including Britain, in efficiently managing the economy and mobilizing all available resources for military purposes became evident. British forces suffered humiliating defeats not only from Germany, but also, along with the Americans, from Japan, which was clearly superior to the Anglo-American alliance in the organizational and technological capabilities to conduct a large-scale war in the vast territory of Southeast Asia. And although Britain, thanks to its alliance with the U.S. and the USSR, was among the victors, after World War II it lost its entire colonial empire-more than 90 percent of its territory and population.

At the time, the Soviet system of managing the national economy proved to be the most efficient: it performed three economic miracles at once: evacuation of industrial enterprises from the European side to the Urals and Siberia, building new industrial regions within half a year; achievement of labor productivity and wartime productivity parameters far exceeding those of Europe united by the Nazis; and rapid reconstruction of cities and production facilities completely destroyed by the invaders.

Roosevelt’s new course significantly increased the mobilizing capacity of the U.S. economy, which enabled the United States to defeat Japan in the Pacific. In postwar Western Europe, the U.S. was unrivaled: after fencing off the USSR with the NATO bloc, the U.S. ruling elite virtually privatized Western European countries, including the remnants of their gold reserves. In the Third World, the former colonies of European states became an area of rivalry between U.S. businesses and Soviet ministries. Further world development occurred in the Cold War format of two world empires-Soviet and American-with similar technocratic models and diametrically opposed political models for managing socio-economic development. Each had its advantages and disadvantages, but was radically superior to the colonial system of family capitalism, with its ruthless exploitation of hired and slave laborers, in terms of the efficiency of organizing mass production and mobilizing resources.

A similar picture is emerging in the present. There are also three possible varieties of the emerging new world order. The first of these has already taken shape in China under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party. It is characterized by a combination of state planning and self-organizing market institutions, state control over the main parameters of economic reproduction and free enterprise, the ideology of the common good and private initiative, and demonstrates extraordinary efficiency in the management of economic development, surpassing the American system by an order of magnitude. This is evident in the rate of development of advanced industrial sectors, which has been much higher in the past three decades and has again been confirmed by the epidemic performance indicators.

The second type of integrated world economy is taking shape in India, which is the largest truly functioning democracy in the world. The foundation of India’s integral system was laid by Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru based on Indian culture. The post-independence Indian Constitution defines the Indian economy as socialist. This norm is practically implemented in the strategic planning system, social policy rules, and financial regulation. The guidelines for monetary issuance are set by a special commission which, based on planned social and economic policy priorities, defines the parameters for refinancing development institutions and banks in the areas of lending to small businesses, agriculture, industry, etc.

Indira Gandhi’s government’s nationalization of the banking system helped align the management of financial flows with the economy’s indicative development plans. The right priorities boosted the development of key sectors of the new technological paradigm, and just before the coronavirus pandemic, India emerged as the fastest growing economy in the world. As in China, the state in India regulates market processes to improve public welfare by encouraging investment in manufacturing and new technologies. In this way, financial and monetary restrictions keep capital within the country, while government planning directs business activity toward the production of tangible goods.

The third variant of the new world economic order exists so far as an image of the future in the eyes of an America-centered financial oligarchy that aspires to world domination. Bids for the formation of a new world order are being launched from the depths of the U.S. deep state. In the wake of the artificially organized pandemic, efforts have been made to create institutions that claim to rule humanity. B. The Gates Foundation establishes control over WHO’s population vaccination activities. Vaccination is used to promote the long-developed technology of biological programming to reduce fertility and total control over the behavior of vaccinees. This technology combines advances in bioengineering and computer science: vaccination is accompanied by chipping, which allows the creation of any restriction on human performance [13].

In other words, the third variant of the new world economy effectively involves the formation of a world government led by the American ruling elite in the interests of the financial oligarchy, which controls the issuance of the world currency, transnational banks and corporations, and the global financial market. It is a continuation of the liberal globalization trend, augmented by authoritarian technologies to control the populations of countries deprived of national sovereignty. It has been described in many anti-utopias, from Orwell’s famous “1984” to contemporary religious images of the coming of the Antichrist – the “electronic concentration camp” that precedes the end of the world. This scenario of the domination of world capital was presented in the first chapter of this monograph.

Each of the above varieties of the new world order presupposes the use of advanced information technologies, which are a key factor in the new technological order. They are all based on big data processing methods and artificial intelligence systems needed to control not only unmanned production processes, but also people in systems of regulating the economy and social behavior. The goals of this regulation are set by the ruling elite, whose mode of formation predetermines the essential characteristics of each of the varieties of the new world economic order mentioned above.

In China, power belongs to the Communist Party leadership, which organizes economic regulation to improve people’s welfare and directs social behavior toward the political goals of building socialism with Chinese characteristics. Market mechanisms are regulated so that the most efficient production and technological facilities win the competition and profit is proportional to their contribution to public welfare. Meanwhile, medium- and large-sized companies, including nongovernmental ones, have party organizations that monitor the conformity of their executives’ behavior to the moral values of communist ideology. Increased labor productivity and production efficiency, modesty and productivity of managers and owners are encouraged, and abuse of market dominance and its speculative manipulation, wastefulness and parasitic consumption are punished. A social credit system is developed to regulate the individual’s social behavior. According to the intentions, each citizen’s social opportunities depend on his or her rating, which is constantly adjusted according to the balance of good and bad deeds. The higher the rating, the greater the individual’s credibility in obtaining a job, promotion, credit, or delegation of authority. This particular modernization of the well-known Soviet system of personal record keeping, which accompanied a person throughout his working life, has its positive and negative sides, the evaluation of which is beyond the scope of this article. Its main problem area is the dependence of the mechanism of forming a productive elite of society on the artificial intelligence that controls the social credit system.

The second variety of the new world economic order is determined by a democratic political system, which can vary greatly from country to country. It is most developed in Switzerland, where major political decisions are made by popular referendum. Its most important incarnation for the world economy is India and, traditionally, the European social democracies. In most countries it is seriously plagued by corruption and subject to manipulation by big business, which can be patriotic or comprador. The introduction of distributed ledger computer technology (blockchain), now widely known, into the system of popular representative elections could significantly improve the efficiency of this political system by eliminating electoral fraud and providing candidates with equal access to the media. The growing popularity of authorial media in the blogosphere creates competition among information sources, facilitating candidates’ access to voters. With adequate legal provision for the use of modern information technologies in the electoral process, an automatic mechanism of accountability of public authorities for the results of their activities in the public interest is formed. The more educated and active the citizens are, the more effectively a democratic political system runs. Its main problem is the dependence of the formation of the ruling elite on clan-corporate structures that are not interested in the transparency and fairness of elections.

Finally, the third variety of the new world economic order is determined by the interests of a financial oligarchy that aspires to world domination. It is accomplished through liberal globalization, which consists of the obfuscation of national institutions of economic regulation and the subordination of its reproduction to the interests of international capital. The dominant position in the structure of the latter is occupied by a few dozen intertwined American-European family clans that control the major financial holdings, power structures, intelligence services, media, political parties and the apparatus of executive power [14]. This core U.S. ruling elite is waging a hybrid war with all the countries it does not control, using a vast arsenal of financial, information, cognitive and even biological technologies to destabilize and chaotize them. The purpose of this war is the formation of a global system of institutions under its control, regulating the reproduction not only of the global economy but also of all humanity through modern information, financial and bioengineering technologies. The main problem with such a political system is its total irresponsibility and amorality, the commitment of its hereditary ruling elite to Malthusian, racist and, in part, misanthropic views.

The formation of a new world order will take place in competition between these three varieties. In doing so, the latter excludes the first two, which can peacefully coexist. Just as the victory of Nazi Germany and Japan in the war against the USSR and the U.S. would have excluded both the Soviet and American models of the new world economic order for that period. After the overall victory, the USSR and the US created competing political systems, dividing the world into zones of influence and avoiding direct confrontation.

Thus, there are three predictive scenarios for the formation of a new world economic order. Their common material basis is a new technological mode, the core of which consists of a combination of digital, computer, bioengineering, cognitive, additive and nanotechnology technologies. Today they are being used to create: unmanned and fully automated production plants; artificial intelligence systems that manage unlimited databases; transgenic microorganisms, plants and animals; cloning of living beings and regeneration of human tissue. On this technological basis, the institutions of an integrated world economic order are being formed, ensuring the conscious management of the socio-economic development of both sovereign states and, potentially, all of humanity. This is done through a combination of state strategic planning and market competition based on public-private partnerships. Depending on the interest of those who regulate the autonomous economic entities, one of the varieties described above of the new world economic order is formed. The first two – communist and democratic – can coexist peacefully, competing and cooperating on the basis of international law. The third – oligarchic – is antagonistic to the first two, as it involves the establishment of hereditary world rule by a few dozen American-European family clans, incompatible with democratic or communist values.

Which of the three predicted scenarios will drive the evolution of humanity depends on the outcome of the hybrid war enacted by the American ruling elite against sovereign States.

Of the three scenarios described above, the variant of domination by the global capitalist oligarchy seems the least likely. Although the global hybrid war is taking place under this very scenario, the U.S. ruling elite is bound to be defeated because of the qualitatively superior efficiency of China’s mobilization capabilities and the lack of interest of all countries in the world in this war.

Under any scenario of further development of the crisis in the world economy, the reproduction mechanisms of the U.S. capital accumulation cycle will be eroded and, as a result, U.S. economic power will be weakened. There is no doubt that the American ruling elite will use any means to maintain its global dominance. It will try to direct the course of events toward the formation of the world government recently referred to by former British Prime Minister G. Brown [15]. The fear of coronavirus pandemic, global warming and ecological catastrophe, fueled by the media controlling and preparing public opinion for this scenario. However, underlying this is the interest of the U.S. financial oligarchy in consolidating its hegemony in the global financial system and preserving the latter, which leaves no chance for independent development for the rest of the countries. To keep them dependent, the Anglo-Saxon geopolitical tradition has such tools as pitting rival countries against each other, provoking social and political conflicts, organizing coups, and encouraging separatists to chaos countries and regions that they do not control. To minimize the resulting risks to Russia, the UEEA, Eurasia and humanity as a whole, it is necessary to immediately form an anti-war coalition capable of inflicting unacceptable damage on the aggressor.Potential participants in the antiwar coalition include all countries that are not interested in a new world war and the vast majority of humanity living in them. First, these are the countries against which the main blow of American aggression is directed: Russia and China. These are the countries of the new world economic order that are successfully growing on the wave of the growth of the new technological mode: China, India, Indochina, forming a new development center of the world economy. These include Japan, Korea, and all the post-Soviet states that have retained their sovereignty and been forerunners in shaping its constituent institutions. And, of course, the countries benefiting from cooperation with the Asian Development Center, which benefit from its growth through participation in the Belt and Road Initiative and other Eurasian integration processes.

Unlike the countries of the “core” of the existing world economic order, which imposed a universal system of financial and economic relations on the world as the basis of liberal globalization, the emerging “core” of the new world economic order is characterized by great diversity. This distinctiveness is also manifested in the principles of international relations shared by its constituent countries: freedom to choose development paths, rejection of hegemonism, and sovereignty of historical and cultural traditions. The new world economic order is being formed on an equal, mutually beneficial and consensual basis. On these principles, new regional economic groupings–the SCO, the EEU, Mercosur, ASEAN-China–and international financial institutions (the BRICS Development Bank and foreign exchange reserve pool, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Eurasian Development Bank) are being created.

The association of countries in large international organizations such as the SCO and BRICS represents a qualitatively new model of cooperation that honors diversity in contrast to the universal forms of liberal globalization. Its core principle is firm support for universally recognized principles and norms of international law and rejection of policies of coercive pressure and infringement on the sovereignty of other states. The principles of the international order, shared by the countries of the emerging “core” of the new world order, are fundamentally different from those characteristic of previous world orders shaped by Western European civilization, as S. Huntington admitted, “not because of the superiority of their ideas, moral values or religion (to which few other civilizations have been converted), but rather because of superiority in the use of organized violence” [16].

The key to the transition to a new world economic order is the restructuring of the global monetary and financial system. The new architecture of international monetary and financial relations should be formed on a legal-contractual basis. Countries that issue global reserve currencies will have to ensure their sustainability by maintaining certain limits on public debt and balance of payments and trade deficits. They will also have to comply with international legal requirements for the transparency of their currencies and their ability to exchange them freely for all goods traded in their territories.

Pole configuration of the new economic order

Based on the above, the configuration of the multipolar world economy before the end of this century is likely to be as follows.

The bipolar core of the new (integral) IEU, with communist (China) and democratic (India) poles, whose competition will produce half of the GDP growth.

Its neighboring periphery (ASEAN, Pakistan, Iran).

The maintenance of the significant influence of the capitalist core of the crumbling old (imperial) IOU (U.S. and Britain) with their satellites.

The wandering between the cores of the old and new IU, the European Union, Turkey, and the Arab world, whose chances for world influence will depend on their ability to break free from U.S. dictates.

Splinters of the old IU adjacent to the core of the integral IU, which are likely to integrate into it, having freed themselves from dependence on Washington (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan).

Commodity periphery of the integral UMI (Africa, Central Asia, Latin America).

Russia and UEEA, which, depending on current economic policy, can either become part of the core of the new (integral) OIE or remain in its commodity periphery, where they currently are.

International organizations ensuring the consolidation of the new (integral) CU (BRICS, SCO, EAEC, ASEAN), whose influence is expected to grow.

International organizations used by the U.S. to maintain its hegemony (NATO, etc.), whose influence will quickly fade with the end of the global hybrid war.

Integral IU differs from imperial IU in restoring the importance of national sovereignty and international law based on it. This predetermines a greater diversity of the geopolitical landscape in which nation-states and their integration associations can create various configurations of international relations, seeking to occupy the most convenient niches in global economic relations. At the same time, the importance of non-economic integration factors such as spiritual culture, proximity of civilizations, spiritual values, and common historical destiny increases significantly. As a result, the influence of historical-spiritual poles of influence will increase, and these will be integrated into the configuration of the integral IU. Its multipolarity will have a civilizational connotation, confirming the concept of a multipolar world of civilizations [17].

Russia’s position in the multipolar world that will be formed as a result of the change of the IU remains uncertain. To get out of the current peripheral position between the cores of the old and new IU, a radical change in economic policy is required, the implementation of an advanced development strategy on the basis of the new technological mode, based on the institutions and management methods of the integral IU [18].

Notes

[1] Krysin L.P., “Modern dictionary of foreign word”, L.P. Krysin ; Inst. В. Vinogradov. – Moscow : AST-PRESS, 2014. – 410.

[2] Glazyev S., “Managing economic development: a lecture course”, Moscow : Moscow University Press, 2019. 759 с.

[3] Arrighi G., “The long twentieth century: money, power and the origins of our time”, London: Verso, 1994.

[4] Glazyev S., “World economic patterns in global economic development”, Economics and mathematical methods. 2016. Т. 52. No. 2; Glazyev S., “Applied results of the theory of world economic patterns”, Economics and mathematical methods. 2016. Т. 52. No. 3; the author of this material registered the scientific hypothesis “Hypothesis of periodic change of world economic models” (Certificate No. 41-N for registration by the International Academy of Authors of Scientific Discoveries and Inventions under the scientific and methodological guidance of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences was issued in 2016).

[5] Glazyev S., “The last world war. The United States starts and loses”, Moscow: Book World, 2016.

[6] Steinbock D., “The U.S.-China trade war and its global impacts”, World Century Publishing Corporation and Shanghai Institutes for International Studies China Quarterly of International Strategic Studies. 2018. Vol. 4. No. 4. P. 515-542.

[7] Fukuyama F., “The end of history and the last man”, MOSCOW: AST, 2010.

[8] Dilip Hiro, “Why China is conquering the ‘American century’”, The Asia Times. https://asiatimes.com/2020/08/why-china-is-taking-over-the-american-cent…

August 19, 2020.

[9] “2030 Zhongguo: mangxiang gongtun fuyu” (China – 2030: towards universal prosperity) / Center for National Studies of Tsinghua University, edited by Hu Angan, Yan Yilong, Wei Xing. Beijing: People’s University of China Press, 2011. С. 30.

[10] “Perspectives and strategic priorities of the rise of the BRICS”, edited by V. Sadovnichy, Y. Yakovets, A. Akayev. Moscow: Moscow State University – Pitirim Sorokin-Nikolai Kondratiev International Institute – INES – National Committee for BRICS Studies – Institute of Latin America of the SAR, 2014.

[11] Wang Wen, “China will not watch globalization die”, The Belt and Road News. 16 June. 2020.

[12] Charles Higham, “Trading With The Enemy: An Expose of The Nazi-American Money Plot 1933-1949”, New York, 1983.

[13] Bill Gates talks about “vaccines to reduce population”

https://www.warandpeace.ru/en/exclusive/view/44942/

March 4, 2010.

[14] Coleman, D., “The Committee of 300. Secrets of world government”, Moscow: Vityaz, 2005.

[15] “UK savior proposes interim world government”, RIA Novosti.

https://ria.ru/20200328/1569257083.html

March 28, 2020.

[16] Huntington S., “The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order (1996) is one of the most popular geopolitical works of the 1990s. Derived from an article in Foreign Affairs magazine, it outlines the political reality and prognosis of global civilization in a new way. It contains Fukuyama’s famous article entitled ‘The End of History’”.

[17] A.Dugin, “Theory of a multipolar world”, Moscow: Eurasian Movement, 2013. – 532 с.

[18] S. Glazyev, “The turn to the future. Russia in the new world technological and economic models”, Moscow: Book World, 2018. – 768 The laws of formation and disappearance of the poles of the world economy.

Translation by Costantino Ceoldo