Indybay Regions North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area North Coast Central Valley North Bay East Bay South Bay San Francisco Peninsula Santa Cruz IMC - Independent Media Center for the Monterey Bay Area California United States International Americas Haiti Iraq Palestine Afghanistan
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature

The final system question Parts 1 and 2

by Bertram Burian
The enrichment elites of the West in particular have been trying for decades to extend their influence to the whole world. That is their declared concept. The worldwide "final victory", the "end of history" (4), the elimination of all competitors for raw materials and markets, have been part of capitalism and imperialism from the very beginning.
The final system question
In the West, an enrichment economy of big capital prevails; in the East, the state reserves dirigiste functions regarding the economy - which system will prevail? Part 1/2.
by Bertram Burian
[This article posted on 2/17/2023 is translated from the German on the Internet,]

Is the world experiencing a "final battle of systems" right now? Here the West with its corporate capital from finance and armament industry as well as Big Pharma and so on, which stands above the state, namely in the form of an oligarchy of enrichment winners, which directs politics almost arbitrarily, to enforce its interests also with the means of war. There the East and South, where the state has clearly retained the upper hand over the economic power and can therefore make independent policies with more focus on the interests of the broad population? Is this the main front line of a struggle that we can observe in the world? Or should it be about much more, namely an extension of real democracy to the economic rules as well and a "final" replacement of the enrichment economy? And how should we assess the role of the World Economic Forum and its claim to direct the world in this? Part 1 of this article addresses the two questions, "Capital over state?" or "State over capital?" and the role of the WEF.

Thomas Röper, who runs the Internet site "Antispiegel," has touched on the "system question" in an important article on apolut (1).

His thesis is:

"We are - without exaggeration - in the final battle of the systems." The "front line" runs here: "The question is who will have power in the future - the governments of the states or the richest billionaire clans and their foundations. At its core, this is the question of the future world order."

Thomas Röper also refers to his books (2), "Dependent Employed", "Corona Inside" and "Putin's Plan", in which he substantiates his thesis.
WEF - World Government?

With his thesis, Thomas Röper first of all opposes the frequently circulated image that the World Economic Forum (WEF) orchestrates world domination. Thomas Röper thinks that this cannot be true if one looks at the list of participants of this year's meeting in Davos and notices that there are no Russians and hardly any Chinese on it. (3)

That the idea of a centrally directed world domination by a world elite, which would represent, for example, the WEF, is contradictory to enemy representations and wars of individual blocs among themselves, had to be clear for a long time. The Ukraine war has made it completely obvious. It makes no sense to speak of central planning of world affairs when obviously the "collective" West defines China and Russia as enemies.

If the reins for a world power were in only one hand, what role would be played by enemies waging war against each other for geostrategic positions? As you can see, it doesn't add up.

That is not to say that extremely relevant forces in the world are intensively striving to direct the entire globe if possible. Among these forces, the WEF is certainly at the forefront. Of course, the enrichment elites of the West in particular have been trying for decades to extend their influence to the whole world. That is their declared concept. The worldwide "final victory", the "end of history" (4), the elimination of all competitors for raw materials and markets, have been part of capitalism and imperialism from the very beginning.

During the Corona staging, one could actually get the impression that this concept had worked out. Exemplarily, all the world, including Russia and China, seemed to have come together in the pharmaceutical spider's web of Bill Gates and in the WHO, which he decisively (co-)controlled. But even in this question, the Chinese politburo, which appeared so self-confident and supposedly so self-determined on the world stage with its radical state-terrorist course, might have realized in the meantime that it had allowed itself to be taken over in a ridiculous way by influential figures from the West.


Fundamentally, today there is open talk of "de-Westernization" (5) even in Chinese leadership bodies. The choice of language to distinguish China from Western claims to global domination is becoming increasingly clear, and not only in Russia. Russia had clearly turned away from the decades-long flattering talk of "dear colleagues in the West" with the start of the Ukraine war and the shock attack of Western sanctions. This can be read very well in the speeches of Vladimir Putin (6) and Sergei Lavrov (7). But also the Chinese defense minister, for example, recently said about the U.S.:

"The facts have proved more than once that the U.S. is a direct threat to the international order and it is to blame for the regional turmoil. The U.S. has sparked conflicts and waged wars against other countries out of self-interest, resulting in massive casualties and the displacement of innocent civilians." (8) And soon after, the Chinese defense minister also stated, "The U.S. is the biggest factor fueling the [Ukraine] crisis" (9).

Unmistakably, the Ukraine war, provoked primarily by the U.S., NATO, and Western enrichment elites, has significantly altered the geopolitical situation with its catastrophic devastation. This is true even if one takes the possibly sufficiently justifiable position that Russia had another way out than to respond to Western provocations of its will to defend itself (10) in turn militarily and in violation of international law.

Quite obviously, Russia and China have moved further together after Russia had to abandon all hopes of a Western rapprochement on an equal footing. (11) Both major powers of the Eurasian Great Continent and many countries of the South now see a "de-Westernization" as an opportunity of the times, even if they realize that ending Western domination entails dramatic risks. Russian President Putin accordingly told Chinese President Xi Jinping in late 2022:

It is a matter of "creating a just world order based on international law." ... "We share the same views on the causes, course, and logic of the changes taking place today in the global geopolitical landscape." (12)

With statements like that, where do we want to see unified world domination?

But what about, for example, a "world money," a digital central bank currency?

World dictatorship through digital central bank currency?

A digital central bank currency is something quite different in New York, in Frankfurt, in Moscow, and in Beijing, respectively, because they are different currency areas guided by their own competing interests. A digital central bank currency for the whole world is not discernible and is probably entirely impossible as long as competitors are choking each other off! (13)

The reverse is true: The great division concerning the interests in this world shows up just also and in particular in the question of the "money power" (14): Who has which influence and which possibility to use also its money power to put a tribute on large parts of the world - keyword "dollar hegemony" (15) and current account deficit (16)? Only the U.S. has had this privilege for decades. Some analyzed as early as 2010:

"Around the globe, central bankers are waging a world war of currencies"... "The superpower [U.S.] derives a huge advantage from its supercurrency, a wealth gain that economist Barry Eichengreen, a world-renowned expert on foreign exchange systems, has put at nearly a trillion a year." (17)

For this reason, among others, Russia speaks of the West as the region of the "golden billion" (18) and takes a stand against the U.S. continuing to have this privilege. It certainly also plays a not insignificant role that dollar hegemony puts the U.S. legally in the position of being able to use extraterritorial secondary sanctions at will all over the world as a means of economic warfare (19).

By stipulating on March 23, 2022, that Russian gas can now only be paid for in rubles (20), Russia has set a ball rolling. The "Petroyuan" agreement between China and Saudi Arabia, which stipulates that a large part of the oil and gas trade will be settled via yuan (21), and the intended creation of a reserve currency of the BRICS states (22), are slowly forming an avalanche from these rolling stones, which, together with other factors, poses a massive threat to the Western system of financial dominance. (23)

The battle may not yet be decided immediately. But it may well all come very suddenly as the Western financial system begins to falter out of internal contradictions.

The fact that the collective West, in its blind short-sightedness and in its logic driven by greed, was not able to recognize that the attempt to ruin Russia economically for a short time is by no means without its own risk (24), gives a deep insight. The West had firmly reckoned that by cutting Russia off from the Swift system, by freezing or simply stealing its foreign assets, and by making trade between Russia and the West largely impossible, it would lay the foundation for Russia's destruction. But as French historian Emmanuel Todd laconically notes:

"It's always the same with world wars: things turn out completely differently than you think." (25)

In the meantime, even the RAND Cooperation, that "think tank" that recommended ruining Russia economically via sanctions as a means of war (26), has meekly rowed back and realizes - without admitting it - that the opposite is true. (27)

In any case, we do not currently see a "world digital currency," but on the contrary a struggle for spheres of influence in this area as well.
"World-great-reset" in the fight against Europe?

The following point also speaks against the silent work of a "world government": The Western financial system is in distress and the U.S., hoping for a saving retreat, is already massively fighting its supposed friends, who are at the same time its bitter competitors: the countries of Europe. Be it through economic measures, by withdrawing capital and manpower, or by arranging it so that the sanctions have disproportionately more side effects for their friend-enemies from Europe. Be it by politically and terroristically destroying energy cooperation with Russia and forcing Europe to depend on expensive and polluting fracked gas from the US. Be it by shifting the burden of the war not only to the desperate people in Ukraine, but also to Europe if possible, and be it finally by imagining Europe as a battlefield for a Third World War if necessary. (28)

So, looking at all these tensions and warlike actions, we certainly do not see a centrally planned world Great Reset (29) that would have any chance of being implemented.

What we can certainly see, however, is that the technologies that state power or corporations or institutions can use to deprive people of their freedom are leaps and bounds increasing the power of those who sit at the levers - this is as true in the West as it is in China, for example. But that is not compelling evidence of cooperation between these two blocs. It is undeniable, however, that there is such cooperation on certain issues, such as subordination to the WHO's efforts to undermine human rights and now also, cast in paragraphs, to abolish them. (30)
WEF - ineffective zero number?

The World Economic Forum (WEF) may act like a "politburo of capitalism" (31), and it undoubtedly has considerable influence in trying to implement strategic coordination and objectives for the collective West. (32) But it reveals the contradiction inherent in the system: Those who must always trim everything they do in the world to increase the profits of the large corporations and their personal enrichment winners are, in truth, completely incapable of action in the face of the world's problems.

How ridiculous is seen in such a way the gibberish of a Klaus Schwab, related to the progress of mankind in all problem questions. The absurdity can be judged very well by the fact that the WEF formulates a world leadership claim for decades, but has to report year after year anew about an increase of catastrophes, with which it is proved sufficiently that all doing of this gigantic capitalism association brings also from "official" view nothing, at least nothing good for mankind.

After decades of its "beneficial" activity and the bundling of the forces of western mega-corporations, the self-appointed world leader now even sees itself forced to announce that a nuclear war (33) "could lead to the extinction of large parts of the world population" (34)! So this is what the WEF has trained its "Young Global Leaders" for, that their planning, talking and acting threatens us with the downfall of mankind?

The summary of this insane process of the last decades in Davos can only be: Profit maximization does not save the world, but destroys it. And it is probably quite clear, by the way, that Russia and China will find themselves less and less under the tutelage of the WEF, even if it is open to me how far they want to be a bulwark against this principle of profit maximization.

The former Swiss banker, Hans Geiger formulates:

"the effect of the WEF today is zero" (35),

and the Russian political analyst Irina Alksnis writes:

"the decades-long reputation (of the WEF) has burst like a balloon." (36)

Thus, both recognize with their statements that "de-Westernization" has also propagated into the "Politburo of Capitalism." It is like the Politburo in the late days of the Soviet Union before Gorbachev brought about change: as much as they row, it only gets worse.
Powerful countermovement - BRICS, SCO and others

In contrast, however, there is increasingly independent action by Russia and China, as well as various economic and also political groupings, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) or the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) (37) or even other South-East cooperation organizations. In graphic terms, the emerging web of states seeking to break free from Western dominance in one way or another looks like this:

Left: SCO (38) Right: BRICS - including expansion intentions (39).

The "front line": The relationship between state and wealth power

So Thomas Röper is certainly right, I think our analysis so far has confirmed, when he speaks of a "front line" between the West on the one hand, and Russia and China on the other, as well as many countries that want to free themselves from the neo-colonialism of the West.

But what is now the "system difference"?
West: capital over state

I think Thomas Röper hits the nail on the head when he points out that the difference between the West, on the one hand, and Russia and China, on the other, lies primarily in the following issue:

In the West, the enrichment oligarchs and their corporations, banks and capital organizers rule by making states largely compliant, while in the East there is a clear primacy of the state over private economic power.

In the West, this "making themselves compliant" runs through "shaping" public opinion via corporate media, through "bought" party leaders, through massive lobbying, through think tanks and NGOs made subservient, through third-party funding of universities, but above all through the completely unrestricted power of investment capital, which spreads into every corner of society in foundations and "public-private partnership" constructions and transforms all thinking about the common good into thinking about profit.

In particular, the "military-industrial complex" of which former U.S. President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned as early as 1961 (40), is a frightening example of how unabashedly the will to enrich is able to bend both public opinion and politics to its right in order to promote rearmament and ultimately war, and to enjoy the radiant wealth on the mountains of misery and corpses (41), which are kept as invisible as possible in the system. The same applies to the "pharmaceutical-industrial complex", as we have seen dramatically in recent years, and very many other areas. It is matched by this portrayal, which is being disseminated via social media:

Just as the political power of individual countries is subject to the enrichment regime, Western nation-states are subject to the main command of global Western capital, based primarily on the United States.

Not to speak of small, dependent countries of the world. This Western corporate and oligarch power apparatus has also deliberately taken over the UN and its sub-organizations as well as countless international institutions as far as possible, and is trying to turn the spirit of the UN Charter into its complete opposite under the slogan "rule-based" order.

Already Marxism knew where it leads to

It is remarkable that even the first critics of capitalism recognized this subordination of the "republic to the omnipotence of wealth." Friedrich Engels stated the bending of democracy in favor of capital already in 1884 in his writing "The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State". And Vladimir Illich Lenin, the most important mentor of the Russian Revolution of 1918, to whose influence subsequently also the foundation of the Soviet Union can be traced, wrote in 1917 during the First World War in exile in Switzerland in his writing "State and Revolution", quoting Engels:

"Today imperialism and the rule of the banks have 'developed' the two methods-'direct official corruption' and 'alliance of the government with the stock exchange'-into an extraordinary art for asserting and exercising the omnipotence of wealth in any republic." And further, "The democratic republic is the best conceivable political shell of capitalism. And when capital has taken possession of this best shell, it is so sure of its power that no change, neither of persons, nor of institutions, nor of parties, can shake this power."

Through the communist revolutions, however, this power was profoundly shaken, and this was indeed a monstrous rupture in the world power aspirations of capitalism. Russia and later China, after the victorious revolutions, opposed the corrupt system of enrichment power with a socialist model of state. Whether this socialist system represented a more viable path can or must be questioned in many respects, at least as far as the real execution is concerned. But it is indisputable that it was fundamentally a path that vehemently curbed the omnipotence of the owners of capital - and did so with a strong state power.
East: State over Capital

Although both Russia and China are nowhere near socialist countries, they still have, or are again having, a state system that differs markedly from the West on this fundamental issue: In these states, the power of corporate owners is essentially subordinate to the political power of the state, rather than vice versa.

The West in particular often claims the exact opposite about Russia. However, it is mainly those people who like to attribute wealth in Russia to odious "oligarchs," while in the West they speak of admirable "philanthropists," even though the latter direct incomparably more "odious" wealth and power. Certainly, Russian owners of corporations also represent a power factor with which the Russian state has to deal. But one should keep in mind how Putin, of all people, put a clear stop to the illegal enrichment of the oligarchs hyped by the West and then President Yeltsin. Thomas Röper recalls this, and sums up:

"Putin put an end to the oligarchs' influence on Russian politics." (42)

Part 2 addresses the question of how far the difference between these two "solutions" really represents a "final system question," or whether it is not still much more a matter of new perspectives, especially with regard to the basic economic rules that fundamentally influence social coexistence.

Sources and notes:

(1) Thomas Röper: The WEF meeting in Davos shows the front line in the war of the systema:

(2) Books by Thomas Röper:
Dependent Employed:
Corona Inside:
Putin's Plan:
(3) However, the WEF still operates an office in China and also one in India. And many of the largest Chinese corporations are among the WEF's "partners" ( But we should not jump to monocausal conclusions from this either. For example, participation in the WEF can also be driven by the idea of gaining influence there. Certainly, the World Economic Forum is above all a headquarters of Western corporations, especially of the USA. Compare also the remarks in Norbert Häring's book, "Endspiel des Kapitalismus", Quadriga Verlag, 2021 and by Wolfgang Bittner in his new book: "Ausnahmezustand: "Geopolitische Einsichten und Analysen unter Berücksichtigung des Ukraine-Konflikts", Zeitgeist-Verlag.
(4) Cf. for example here: Berliner Zeitung:
(5) South China Morning Post, Wang Wen: "Along with China, more and more countries are rejecting the US-led world order - 2022 will go down in history as the year of "de-Westernization"."
(6) Putin, Valdai speech on the New World Order:

(7) Foreign Minister Lavrov's declaration of war on the West at the UN General Assembly:
(8) Global Times:

(9) Dr. Daniele Ganser:
(10) Wolfgang Bittner: "State of Emergency: "Geopolitical Insights and Analyses Taking into Account the Ukraine Conflict", Zeitgeist-Verlag 2023, page 98
(11) A historically important example of this is Putin's speech to the German Bundestag in 2001, after which he was honored by the German deputies with a standing ovation.

(12) Pepe Escobar:

(13) "Simply put, transferring the power to print money from one's own central bank to a supranational authority requires enormous mutual trust between countries and a highly cooperative geopolitical environment."
What the Future Holds for the Monetary System," Credit Suisse, January 17, 2023.

(14) Stephen Zarlenga: "The myth of money - the story of power" Conzett Verlag 1998/99.

(15) If Jens Berger in the article "Denkfehler Dollarhegemonie" assigns much less importance to this question, I think one has to consider the possibility that printing money out of nothing for that country, which causes all other countries to accumulate reserves of their own money (dollars), leads to the fact that these other countries have to share the inflation devaluation, although they could by no means print the dollars for themselves. The enrichment of the U.S. financial oligarchs through freshly printed money is thus forcibly supported by the other countries. Daniel D. Eckert, in the book cited below, also quotes George Soros as further evidence, who said, "The Chinese own a lot of American government bonds. That puts them in a very strong position. They have also already launched their first attacks on the dollar. They want to replace it as the reserve currency."

And, "In the mainstream literature, the so-called "exorbitant privilege" (Eichengreen 2012) of the issuer of the world's reserve currency is a concept, but the significance of the system's asymmetry is only rudimentarily understood there. It seems America can run current account deficits and pay for them simply by reprinting dollar bills. But the worldwide use of dollar bills is only one aspect of the exorbitant privilege. More generally, the exorbitant privilege arises from the acquisition of high-yielding assets through the issuance of low-yielding reserves. The privilege spans Wall Street, which can act liberated worldwide by means of U.S. dollars and enjoys ultimate backing from the Federal Reserve."
Bibo Jörg, Forum for Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FFM), Düsseldorf: "On U.S. Dollar Hegemony: A Look Back - and into the Future" Seite 16
Compare also letters to the editor on the article by Jens Berger:

(16) "In contrast to most other countries in the world, the U.S. is in control of the devaluation of its foreign liabilities - even without crises. Since the dollar is the dominant currency in the world monetary system, the U.S.'s foreign liabilities are predominantly denominated in dollars. If the U.S. pursues an expansionary monetary policy and the dollar depreciates, the real value of its external debt declines. The countries holding the claims on the U.S. in the form of U.S. government bonds, corporate shares or asset-backed securities, etc., realize losses calculated in their currency."... Charles de Gaulle had already deplored this phenomenon as an "exorbitant privilege" in the 1960s. Ronald McKinnon spoke of a "quasi-unlimited line of credit" owing to the international role of the dollar. ... In other words, the U.S. exploits its trading partners through current account imbalances, not vice versa! Besides Germany, Japan and China are the big paymasters."
Prof. Dr. Gunther Schnabl 2017, Director of the Institute for Economic Policy at the University of Leipzig

"The U.S. has lived with a negative trade balance for decades, easily financed via the reserve currency, the U.S. dollar." Dr. Ulrich Kater, Chief Economist, DeKaBank, 2017.

(17) Daniel D. Eckert, "World War of Currencies," FB Publishing, 2012.

(18) Here is the Washington Post on this. Of course, it "refutes" the "Golden Billion" thesis. But let everyone judge how well the authors succeed:

(19) Zeitgespräch, Bernd Kempa: "The US dollar as reserve currency - no alternative? Page 10. A very readable analysis! DOI: 10.1007/s10273-018-2355-y

(20) Wiener Zeitung:

(21) Financial Times: "A new world energy order is taking shape".

(22) For example, here's a pretty good summary, even if I don't think Bitcoin is the future solution! Also, don't forget that all currencies are in any case subject to the regime of "the market" if they are valued according to free exchange rates. This makes agreements at local levels difficult, since trade is then also affected by the ups and downs of exchange rates in terms of value. The only real solution would be a world benchmark for all currencies, which is not itself a currency that can profit from its status.

(23) For example, the Swiss bank Credit Suisse also writes on January 17, 2023 in the analysis, "What the Future Holds for the Monetary System":
"Macroeconomic imbalances and geopolitical factors could accelerate the transformation of the current, largely USD-based monetary system into a multipolar one."

(24) RND Feb. 25, 2022: "Baerbock on sanctions package: 'This will ruin Russia'"

(25) Die Weltwoche Jan. 7, 2023:

(26) RAND Cooperation 2019: "This brief examines ... a comprehensively nonviolent, high-cost set of options that the United States and its allies could pursue across economic, political, and military domains to strain - overwhelm and unbalance - Russia's economy and armed forces, as well as the regime's political standing at home and abroad."

(27) RAND Cooperation 2023: Avoid a long war:

(28) Regarding the latter, it seems that responsible persons in the Kremlin understand that the counter-threat with Russian hypersonic missiles should first be directed at the USA. But this does not mean that Europe is off the hook.

(29) "I forced myself to read the book by Klaus Schwab and Thierry Malleret, "The Great Reset." But all I could really make out was ridiculously bouncing loudmouths making authoritarian-style assessments that they believe will come to pass merely because they made them. But it isn't like that. Even the empire has now had to pull out of Afghanistan, when it can claim all the power in the world on an unprecedented scale!" October 2021:

(30) Dr. Peter F. Mayer: "Stripped from New WHO Health Regulations: Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms" TKP:
See also:

(31) Democratic Resistance No. 32 of January 9, 2021: "Politburo of Capitalism" by Walter van Rossum.
(32) For this Western Empire, it is certainly true to point out the profoundly undemocratic presumption of the WEF to be the "world" leader. Without doubt, what the WEF called for in the 2010 Global Redesign Report speaks a clear language in this regard: "A globalized world is best governed by a coalition of multinational corporations, governments, including through the United Nations system, and selected civil society organizations and CEOs." Quoted from Wolfgang Bittner, "State of Emergency: "Geopolitical Insights and Analyses Considering the Ukraine Conflict," Zeitgeist-Verlag.
(33) "Possible nuclear incidents or even wars."


Hans Geiger was a member of the General Management of Schweizerische Kreditanstalt, then its "Chief Information Officer". Furthermore, he was a member of the board of the Zurich Chamber of Commerce.

(36) She justifies it by saying that neither Georg Soros nor the heads of state of the G7 countries, except Germany, nor the heads of the large Chinese corporations came to this year's meeting in Davos.

(37) BRICS and the expansion intentions:

(38) SCO:

(39) BRICS:

(40) Eisenhower warns against military-industrial complex:

(41) Nicolas J.S. Davies: "The Blood Trail of US-led Wars since 9/11" in: Ullrich Mies (HG.) "Der Tiefe Staat schlägt zu", Promedia Verlag, page 131

(42) Thomas Röper, "Putins Plan", J.K. Fischerverlag 2022, page 100 ff.

Compare also, the detailed account of Khodorkovsky's role, and how the Russian state prevailed against the oligarch, in the article by Wolfgang Effenberger on Apolut: "War Propaganda Fireworks at the Council On Foreign Relations: Kasparov and Khodorkovsky Call for Ukraine's Quick Victory" starting on page 5 of the pdf file:

Bertram Burian, born in 1954, was a teacher and interim principal at a Vienna New Middle School. He completed a university degree in political education, worked as an inventor for many years and became acquainted with Marxism as a teenage late-68s. He says, "The question is not whether Karl Marx or Karl Popper were right - they were both right and wrong at the same time. De facto, it is about the good life of all as part of an intact biosphere. This also means that we need a new economy and that we have to focus on the well-being of the 99 percent.

Read more
Curtain up!

The warlike production currently being presented to us has similarities to a play.
15.02.2023 by Peter Zakravsky
Celebrate your humanity!


The final system question
In the West, an enrichment economy of big capital prevails; in the East, the state reserves dirigiste functions regarding the economy - which system will prevail? Part 2/2.
by Bertram Burian
[This article posted on 2/21/2023 is translated from the German on the Internet,]

Is the world experiencing a "final battle of systems" right now? Here the West with its corporate capital from finance and armament industry as well as Big Pharma and so on, which stands above the state, namely in the form of an oligarchy of enrichment winners, which directs politics almost arbitrarily, to enforce its interests also with the means of war. There the East and South, where the state has clearly retained the upper hand over the economic power and can therefore make independent policy with more focus on the interests of the broad population. Is this the main front line of a struggle that we can observe in the world? Or should it be about much more, namely an extension of real democracy to the economic rules as well and a "final" replacement of the enrichment economy? And how should one assess the role of the World Economic Forum (WEF) and its claim to direct the world in this? Part 2 now deals here with the question of how far the difference between these two "solution paths" really represents a "final system question", or whether it must not be much more about new perspectives, especially with regard to the fundamental economic rules that fundamentally influence social coexistence.

We saw in Part 1 of this article that in the collective West there is a capitalist system that has grown over decades, in which the super-rich, namely Western oligarchs, who prefer to be called "philanthropists" here, have a fundamental grip on state power.

The state is a servant of big capital, the military-industrial complex, the pharmaceutical-industrial complex, and so on, all of which are intertwined with state power through foundations and "public-private partnerships" to keep it under control.

The "leading media", "think tanks", et cetera, which are under the same private rule, prepare the necessary "public consciousness" and steer democracy in such a way that out comes what is supposed to come out, namely that the rule of the enrichment economy and its personal winners remains untouchable and that the struggle for resources and markets may lead to the "final victory" of corporate Western imperialism, if possible, everywhere in the world. Marxists recognized this tendency more than 150 years ago.

However, since the collapse of socialism from 1989 onwards, despite the imperial supremacy of the West - led by the U.S. empire - the world has not developed to the "end of history", but a multitude of counter-, better liberation movements have emerged. As a result, we see, among others, the mergers of Eastern and Southern countries in the organization of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa) and SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization).

The great powers of China and Russia show a different model: The state stands above capital and is thus not a driven force of profit interests - if this thesis is fully correct. Both countries look back on a long history of socialist revolutions, and although they clearly no longer have fundamental socialist aspirations on their banners today, they handle the state much more as an independent and strictly separate power entity than their Western counterparts.

Socialism is no longer a vision of the future

But the primacy of the state over capital does not constitute socialism. And socialism itself has shown in a long historical experience that it can hardly escape a decisive disadvantage: Power emanates from a party, and this party holds not only the political power of the state, but also the management of the economy under its control.

As much as this may, with good intentions, create a system that genuinely cares about the social concerns of the population, this immense power of the party nevertheless inevitably divides society. The dividing line here is between the political rulers, including the coterie that soon forms around them, and the rest of the population, which is at the mercy of the "dictatorship of the proletariat." At least this is how it was practiced under real socialism, although in principle socialist ideas could also be combined with real democracy.

If today's successor states of the Russian and Chinese revolutions enforce independent governance against the desires of the owners of large property and the associated power of corporations - if they can, or want to, really comprehensively - this is no guarantee that the system summa summarum is one that permanently organizes people's lives in a way that combines prosperity and freedom and a life in harmony with the biosphere. But all three is necessary in social balance for a good life of all people.
So it can only be about a new way

When Thomas Röper speaks of a "final battle of the systems" (1), he is probably right insofar as the question of whether the Western system of neoliberal hypercapitalism will prevail worldwide or whether there will be a replacement of this system by multipolarity and an increased equality of peoples and states in this world is indeed a "final" question of life or demise, of prosperity or almost unrestricted modern slavery. But to focus the difference of the systems only on the question of state power seems to me nevertheless too little. It must be about a new way.

Human self-efficacy and freedom from existential worries

Ultimately, the question is how real democracy can be shaped. And this in the sense that all people have a right to self-efficacy, i.e. freedom, and to unrestricted security of their livelihoods within the framework of the world community. Only this can be a way of the future. Freedom under the condition that, as far as possible, nobody has existential worries, as in the old "abundance societies" of the hunter-gatherers (2), because the local and the world-wide cooperation of the people functions without complaint and with foresight.

The enrichment economy and the dictatorship of wealth destroy the livelihood of the people. Party dictatorship or any other kind of arbitrary rule will also not create a basis for a good life for all, because there can be no good life without freedom. And freedom here can only be understood as the greatest possible freedom from coercive state measures.

On the other hand, clear rules, which only a democratically determined state can enforce, must prevent individuals from destroying the social and human securities of all segments of the population for their own benefit. Certainly, these issues are also on the agenda in Russia and China and in all countries of the world - in each case under different starting conditions.

Democracy must reclaim the right to decide on investments

The key question is what economic rules apply, and here again the key question is who decides on investments. Investments create the future of a society. We need a democratically organized society that must take back the right to decide on investments - both from the power of the private owners and from the power of the apparatchiks. Financial markets, speculative transactions, joint-stock companies, derivatives et cetera will then be largely unnecessary, and apparatchiks will have to submit to democracy, transparency and popular control. That is a high demand, but only in this way will humanity find an emergency exit. At least, that is my thesis.

The rules we should establish in a new social contract would be, according to my proposal, these:

First, there may be a self-organizing economy in which the pursuit of self-interest results in an economy alive to provide for the common good. But there must be no enrichment. There must be a ceiling, both on private income and on the accumulation of capital by corporations.

The question of the maximum private income seems to me to be of much greater importance than one would like to assume. Whether someone can pursue his greed unlimitedly, or whether he knows that he has arrived at the ceiling of his possibilities, makes an essential difference, in the "inner order of action"!

Such a rule, which makes all enrichment impossible, is a hard intervention and it requires the enforcement of transparency and control. But it frees from all those interventions and controls, which in the end are only supposed to protect the right of enrichment, and which have been developing again increasingly in a fascistoid (3) or mirror-image Stalinist direction for quite some time.

Secondly, the control of money by money production must never be able to be used in such a way that private wealth can arise from it. This can be easily realized by the fact that every newly printed money must be divided among all members of a society.

Third, a huge investment pot is formed from all economic activities. But it is not the owners of the corporations who decide where to invest according to profit interests, nor is it an apparatus of elite functionaries and party followers, but the population itself decides. This can only be realized through completely independent democratic committees formed at random - similar to truly uninfluenced juries.

Moreover, direct referendums on crucial issues are undoubtedly the means of choice. If the people were enlightened by truly free and independent media, which is of course the prerequisite, and could thus form a well-founded opinion, and if the population were presented, because the democratic rule dictates it, with the question, for example, of whether a hundred billion in "special funds" should be made available for going to war, or whether the money should rather be invested in education and peace initiatives, - how would the population probably decide when they know that armament will bring war and destruction to their own country?

In a real democracy decisions about such and other investments must be made by direct consultation of the population, otherwise it should not call itself democracy, i.e. people's rule!

I have these three ideas here of course only touched. By the way, some of them can also be found in Christian Felber's Gemeinwohlökonomie (4).
The "final battle of the systems" can only be fought for a better system.

But if we ask whether there is a "final battle of the systems", we have to include the questions touched upon above, such as the limitation of the right to personal enrichment, or the question of what should happen to newly printed money, and above all, who should decide about investments.

The question here would be whether China, Russia or the BRICS countries really want to break new ground in this regard. In my opinion, that would then be a question that is really about a struggle for a better system. But if it is not about that, but only about rejecting a currently dominant hegemon, the "battle of the systems" may ultimately be one that will not really move humanity forward in a decisive and "final" way.

Merely because the state retains its power, even vis-à-vis the corporations, does not mean that a new system has emerged. Even if the dependent or independent role of the state is an important question, the decisive question remains from where the state derives the legitimacy of its actions. If, for example, there is no separation of powers and no direct control of the state by the population and, above all, if there is no direct possibility for the population to intervene in economic and political events, then we have a state capable of acting, but at best a meritocracy, and at worst a dictatorial enslavement of humanity.

A real democracy is easy to recognize

In evaluating this question, however, we must again be very careful and not allow ourselves to be led by prejudices. It may well be that the interests of the population in China or even in Russia are taken into account much more than in the supposedly so democratic West. And indeed, democracy cannot be practiced in only one way, not at all. But whether it is real democracy, in the sense that the population can articulate and realize its own interests, that is easy to see.

At present, it looks as if the value West, which pretends to abide by international law, is undoubtedly doing it decidedly less than the developing counterpower. In the name of this counter-power, for example, Vladimir Putin formulates:

"Today, the absolute majority of the world community demands just that: democracy in international affairs, and it does not accept any forms of authoritarian dictates by individual countries or groups of states. What is this if not the direct application of the principles of people's power at the level of international relations?"

What the situation is with regard to the organization of "people's power" within Russia, I am too little able to judge.

As far as China is concerned, it is true that one can see that old Confucian images of rule find self-evident recognition under the mantle of the Communist Party (5). But it is also essential to point out that there has undoubtedly been no tradition of world expansionism in China, as there has been in the capitalist West.

Hoping that Russia and China will follow a different path is too little. There must be securitized rights of the population to democratic self-efficacy. There must be new, clearly defined rules for a new economy and a new kind of democracy!

If China and Russia would become a shining example here, an enormous amount would be done, but it should be widely recognizable by their actions. It would spur on the rest of the world enormously. For this, however, one must raise the system question and not so much the "culture" question, the "fatherland" question, the question of Confucian tradition or the question of economic growth. We will see how history proceeds, where the solution to these questions will first emerge in the historical process.

The final question

The real question is: How is real, genuine democracy, which enables people to live a good life in self-efficacy, also enforced in economic matters? (6) In my understanding, this would be a "final question" of the "struggle of the systems". Although we must restrictively say that we know from history that there are no "final" questions, because the development always goes on.

Compared with today's scenario of the threatening final destruction of human life, however, it is very much a "final" question. For if we do not find a way out, the contradictions will inevitably come to a head until mankind gloriously proves that, thanks to all its knowledge and skills, it can annihilate itself at the push of a button. I do not have to point out particularly that we are at present in those milliseconds of the evolution of the life, converted into a day, in which we scratch in one away along this border to the self extinction.

Revolutions in the sense of a new way

If the rest of the "sensible ones", which still remain from centuries of "enlightenment", succeed in not letting it come to this final suicide, then the question will be: Do we really have a picture of a fundamental detachment from the two wrong ways of the 19th, 20th and the still young 21st century? Only if revolutions in the sense of such a new way, sweep away the corrupt and criminal political and economic rulers, the rescue from a "final" downfall will be possible in the end.

Hic Europe, hic salta

Europe would do well to be the first to take this step. Hic Europa, hic salta. (7) This Europe is the cradle of both capitalism and socialism. Now that all the world is reflecting to this Europe that its great historical phase must be superseded, and now that economic decline will also successively cut us off from the supply of neocolonially exploited peoples, and now that therefore the 99 percent of the population will increasingly realize to whom they are paying tribute and by whom they are misguided, this Europe should go ahead with vision and vigor. In doing so, it can rightly invoke its tradition of democratic, truly liberal and truly social revolutions.

What is meant, of course, is not that once again the false "elites" take the lead with further fraudulent labeling, but that the population, which has learned to gain consciousness and therefore does not allow itself to be divided by nonsensical theories and propaganda, acts sovereignly itself and en masse. Just completely in the sense of genuine democracy. It is, as Dr. Rainer Rothfuß very succinctly puts it:

"Sovereignty arises solely through consciousness in the population. A people that understands, that recognizes, that can weigh things up, that is sovereign, that does not allow itself to be fooled. ... Everything is at stake, our future is at stake" (8).

But consciousness can only emerge from a new, different view of reality, independent of the predetermined paradigms of thought of the rulers, which obviously lead us into misery and war.

We are experiencing the beginning of a new view of reality and the inner development of contradictions in the individual countries and in the whole world accelerate this other view of reality enormously. But this different view of reality must above all lead to a new vision, a new "theory", which gives the mass of the population the power to express itself purposefully. Then what Karl Marx already formulated 180 years ago in his seminal statement will apply:

"Theory becomes material violence as soon as it seizes the masses" (9).

The "material violence" does not mean violence against people but the eruption of the new knowledge, the metamorphosis, the wildfire of the new, the breakthrough into the new land of thinking and feeling, into the new, old-known land of the again liberated humanity, which now also begins to be reflected in the basic economic rules.

Sources and notes:

(1) Thomas Röper: The WEF meeting in Davos shows the front line in the war of the systema:
(2) Marshall Sahlins, quoted from Uwe Wesel: Geschichte des Rechts, C.H. Beck Verlag 2014, page 20.
(3) See Ulrich Mies, Rubikon, "The Coup from Above":
(4) Christian Felber, "Gemeinwohlökonomie":
(5) Compare, for example, a self-representation of the CPC: "Unlike electoral democracy in the West, the CPC's meritocratic political career is characterized by ,,choice plus election" ..."
(6) "We have to choose: We can have a democracy or concentrated wealth in the hands of a few - but not both." Louis Brandeis, U.S. Supreme Court Justice from 1916 to 1939 and one of the country's most influential jurists. Quoted from: Paul Schreyer, "The Fear of Elites - Who Fears Democracy?" Westend Publishing, 2018, page 13
(7) Rubicon, Bertram Burian:
(8) Dr. Rainer Rothfuß in an interview at (minute 01)
(9) Karl Marx: "On the Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right," MEW Volume 1, page 385, Dietz Verlag Berlin 1956.

Bertram Burian, born in 1954, was a teacher and interim principal at a Vienna New Middle School. He completed a university degree in political education, worked as an inventor for many years and became acquainted with Marxism as a teenage late-68s. He says, "The question is not whether Karl Marx or Karl Popper were right - they were both right and wrong at the same time. De facto, it is about the good life of all as part of an intact biosphere. This also means that we need a new economy and that we have to focus on the well-being of the 99 percent.

Read more
The final system question

In the West, an enrichment economy of big capital prevails; in the East, the state reserves dirigiste functions regarding the economy - which system will prevail? Part 1/2.
17.02.2023 by Bertram Burian
Defamed and censored


"On the side of diplomacy" (II).
China's highest-ranking foreign policy official announced an initiative to end the Ukraine war at the Munich Security Conference over the weekend. Wang Yi announced that Beijing will soon present a paper outlining China's position on settling the conflict. China's push is in line with calls for a negotiated settlement to the Ukraine war that have long been put forward in the Global South. Brazil's President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, for example, recently announced the formation of a "peace club" of states that are in favor of an end to the Ukraine war. India is also trying to negotiate with both sides in the conflict; its National Security Advisor was in Moscow for talks with President Vladimir Putin about ten days ago. Turkey has successfully moderated talks between Russia and Ukraine in the past; however, a possible peace agreement in the spring of 2022 failed due to interventions by the West. Berlin is also positioning itself against Beijing's latest mediation proposal and is counting on a military victory for Ukraine.
Source: German Foreign Policy

„Auf der Seite der Diplomatie“ (II)

(Eigener Bericht) – Chinas ranghöchster Außenpolitiker hat am Wochenende auf der Münchner Sicherheitskonferenz e...
Add to this: China 'deeply concerned' - conflict threatens to spiral 'out of control'
China's Foreign Minister Qin Gang has expressed "deep concern" about the war in Ukraine.
This is intensifying and even threatens to spiral out of control, Qin said in a speech on global security. China will work with the international community to promote dialogue and consultations, address the concerns of all parties and strive for common security, he said. At the same time, he said, Beijing urged certain countries to stop pouring more oil on the fire as soon as possible. The Chinese foreign minister was apparently alluding to Western arms deliveries to Kiev.
Only on Saturday, top Chinese diplomat Wang Yi announced a push for a political solution to the conflict at the Munich Security Conference. He did not give details, but stressed his country's willingness to cooperate with all sides.
Source: Deuts Ukraine-Krieg - China "zutiefst besorgt"

Ukraine-Krieg - China "zutiefst besorgt" - Konflikt drohe "außer Kontrol...

Chinas Außenminister Qin Gang hat sich "zutiefst besorgt" über den Krieg in der Ukraine geäußert.
Jürgen Habermas on Ukraine: A plea for negotiations
The West is supplying weapons to Ukraine for good reasons: but this gives rise to a shared responsibility for the further course of the war. A guest commentary.
The decision to supply Leopard tanks had just been hailed as "historic," but the news was already outstripped - and put into perspective - by vociferous demands for fighter jets, long-range missiles, warships and submarines. The dramatic and understandable cries for help from Ukraine, which had been invaded in violation of international law, were echoed as expected in the West. What was new here was only the acceleration of the familiar game of morally indignant calls for more powerful weapons and the subsequent, albeit hesitant, upgrading of the promised types of weapons.
Even from SPD circles it was now heard that there were no "red lines". Except for the chancellor and his entourage, the government, parties and press are almost unanimously taking to heart the evocative words of the Lithuanian foreign minister: "We must overcome the fear of wanting to defeat Russia." From the vague perspective of a "victory," which can mean anything, any further discussion about the goal of our military assistance - and about the way to achieve it - is supposed to be settled. Thus, the process of rearmament seems to take on a momentum of its own, prompted by the only too understandable insistence of the Ukrainian government, but driven in our country by the bellicose tenor of a concentrated published opinion in which the hesitation and reflection of half the German population are not given voice. Or not quite?
Source: Süddeutsche

also: The Ukraine war and our obligation to peace
If today it is again argued that peace can only be achieved by force of arms, this is a relapse into the warlike times before the UN Charter.
The war in Ukraine is now entering a second year - without even an attempt at a diplomatic solution. Instead of peace talks, the warring and conflicting parties have become further entangled in a dangerous spiral of military escalation using ever heavier weapons systems. As if we were still stuck in the thought patterns of the first half of the 20th century, large-scale military offensives are now supposed to bring the solution.
This will only further destroy Ukraine. But an even more dangerous consequence is that the prestige of the world's two largest nuclear powers - the United States and Russia - hangs on the outcome of such offensives. This increases the risk of direct confrontation between these nuclear powers, which possess about 90% of all nuclear weapons in the world.
After World Wars I and II, this would be the third time that a war on European soil has escalated into a world war - only this time with potentially significantly more devastating consequences. Already, the vast majority of the world's population uninvolved in the war is suffering the economic consequences of that war; a nuclear war could wipe out all life on earth - whether belonging to a warring party or not. Thus, a war situation has arisen that our forefathers had wanted to prevent through the UN Charter.
Source: Macroscope

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!


$60.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.


Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network