THE DESIGN OF THE U.S. ELITES - YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW.

US Elite Transformation: The Collapse of Old Power Structures, the Rise of a New Generation, and the Future of Global Relations

For quite a long time I have been dealing with the problematics of ruling elites in the United States. Somewhere at the beginning of Trump's first cadence, in 2016, life itself gave me a chance to test my predictions in practice. At that time, the U.S. ruling elite was just beginning to be drawn into a process of transformation that I thought would bring a new generation of politicians to power in the United States, unencumbered by anchors of ideological dislike for Russia. It seemed that such a scenario would finally allow us to stop fighting about everything and start building equal cooperation. The objective prerequisites for such predictions were not far-fetched. In the U.S. we can distinguish six elites involved in the struggle for power: financial, industrial, military, media-technological, intellectual and administrative-bureaucratic. Those who have ruled the ball for the last 30 years are the financial elite. Its interests are global. It is it that is the creator and beneficiary of globalization and dominance of the American global financial system. The principle is simple - unlimited export of American capital and its non-equivalent exchange for anything it likes around the world. Businesses, lands, politicians, in general, I repeat, without restrictions. For the U.S. financial elite, capital is cheap and unlimited because they print their own dollars, receiving perpetual credit at zero percent interest. In recent decades, using this unlimited resource, the financial elite has almost completely absorbed the media and young technological elites, which were already merging with each other, as well as completely controlling the generation of ideas and the state apparatus. At the political level, this resulted in a monopoly on power by a clan of globalist Democrats (the Clintons) and globalist Republicans (the Bushes) who found consensus with them. They found mutual understanding in the vector of the common foreign policy of the so-called neocons, who seek to remake the world for the interests of the United States by force. Another group competing with financiers is the industrial elite. That is, those who create something real on the territory of the United States - concrete, tangible products such as oil, airplanes, tractors, or, to generalize, jobs in real sectors of the economy. Of course, the boundaries of these elites are layered on top of each other on the boards of large corporations, but nevertheless, the two groups can be distinguished quite clearly. The industrial elite wants investment primarily in their businesses in the United States. This is quite logical. After all, when capital goes to the outer perimeter and begins to feed potential competitors, it definitely poses a serious danger that the competitors will someday equal or even surpass the U.S. itself. Moreover, the export of capital automatically means underfunding of domestic industrial and technological potential, which means stagnation, job cuts and, as a consequence, increased social tension. Which, in fact, is what has been happening in the country's industrial belt in recent years. And for another powerful force - the ally of the industrial elite - the military elite of the United States, the industrial and technological backwardness of the country is an unacceptable threat to national security.

Since the early 2000s, the process of de-industrialization has clearly begun to corrode and fragment the Republican Party from within, first through the Tea Party movement and then through the formation and consolidation of the Trumpist movement. The Republicans, spontaneously at first and then systematically, tapped into the discontent of those American voters who had gained little from globalization, paying for it with their jobs and the influx of migrants. At the same time, the Democratic Party has become manna from heaven for those who have benefited from globalization. That's a pretty broad social cross-section of American society. This includes the highly educated stratum of residents of big cities, with whom the “new” economy is associated. These are startups, traders, IT guys, lawyers, PR people, bloggers, etc., i.e., all those for whom big cities have become “lifestyles” and “playgrounds,” as well as those who serve them coffee and weight loss smoothies for minimum wage, and those who live off subsidized government programs. A monopoly on money and power is the perfect demon. And in the absence of at least ideological competition, this demon has completely corrupted the Democrats - their leaders have felt that the world can not only be owned, it can be remade, spreading their elitist-consumerist lifestyle, unencumbered by anything, not even procreation, to the entire society, and then the whole world. Here it is somewhat inconvenient to remind intelligent people of the simple fact that economic interest forms stable political views, including foreign policy. If we translate the direct interests of globalist financiers, it is clear that their well-being and even survival depends entirely on the state of the “golden triangle”: US military power - the dollar - global institutions and alliances. In this logic, Russia, by its existence as a resurgent center of power, poses a threat to their “golden triangle”, successfully forming a real alternative. China, in principle, is quite thoroughly integrated into the US global system as the largest buyer of capital and supplier of products - a dependent partner and a manageable competitor, at least as long as America dictates the rules of the game. However, for the capitalists of the real sector of the US economy, especially those who see in Trump a chance to restore their wealth and regain their former influence, the picture of the world is quite different. In this picture, China is not a “labor colony” but a full-fledged player that is already trying to take over American markets with persistence and success. Against the backdrop of the degradation of American education and the U.S. international position in general, China may well become the sole leader in the foreseeable future. And this is absolutely unacceptable from the point of view of national security. Russia, not being an economic competitor in the medium term, is a distant country, relatively (for the U.S.) small and, moreover, immersed in its current problems, both in terms of demography and its geopolitical environment. What's the point of provoking a nuclear power if it is easier to negotiate with it, which is already the case. The anti-Russian bias in America's Democrat-controlled bureaucratic elites is also explained by the fact that there are still a large number of people there who ideologically or ethnically perceive Russia as an existential adversary. This is often determined by the fact that they come from countries with which Russia has historically had highly controversial relations, such as the Baltics, Poland, and Ukraine. For them, Russia is a personal problem and fighting it is the goal of life. Finally, of no small importance is the concept of the primordial exceptionalism of the United States, in which they have grown up since childhood, and which justifies Washington's unilateral actions in the international arena and disregard for the interests of other countries. What everyone there is united in is the opinion that they are God's chosen country. A long preface before asking the big question: what happened to the elites if the entire deep state of Democrats persecuted Trump back into power, and what happens to the American elites next? First of all, what has happened is the collapse of the Democrats, and above all the Clintonist group. They, having been in manic stubbornness for a long time not to give the slightest share of power to anyone else, have completely degenerated. Having spit on them, the young Democrats, who brought the Clintonites to the streets and snatched a Pyrrhic victory for themselves in 2020, simply stayed at home this time. Meanwhile, the young “elephant” Republicans have managed to remove the old globalists from their ranks and convince enough non-whites that their economic interests will not be ignored under Trump. However, if we extrapolate the current elite dynamics for another four, much less eight, years, we get a stalemate of permanent conflict. The future economic policies of the new U.S. administration may breathe life into America's industrialized economy, but all of this is already happening as a consequence of the systemic formation of the anti-Chinese Anglo-Saxon bloc and the savage robbery of Europe. Moreover, the avant-garde high-tech sector - the domain of young “donkeys” - will also boost a substantial inflow of funds into the U.S. economy. The Republican Party, due to its principled denial of the active role of the “big” state (which with the blessing of the 47th elected boss of all America is going to cut Ilon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy), is not able and will not solve the three main problems. And without solving them, the U.S. will not be able to remain competitive in the emerging new technological cycle. Note, the first war of the new technological cycle is already underway. So what are these challenges? There is no secret, and if we look closely at the current United States from at least an arm's length away, we can see them with our own eyes:

- A dramatic reduction in social inequality that is already tearing the country apart;

- a restructuring of education, which is no longer capable of producing professionals of sufficient quantity and quality for the new economy;

- a radical overhaul of a health care system that, despite the incredible costs imposed by a sweeping 20% tax on all American businesses, lags behind the competition in terms of efficiency.

Another of the most important reasons for the impasse is in the realm of sociology. It is the overdue conflict between “fathers” and “children”. Only in our particular case, it is not even a conflict between “grandfathers” and “grandchildren,” but between all three generations. It is the rarest case in the history of civilization, when both grandchildren have already reached a capable state, and grandfathers are not only not dead, but even not completely out of their minds and want to continue to rule until their deathbed. This is a global social dissonance. After all, throughout the history of mankind it has been assumed that “children” are more progressive than “fathers”, that “fathers” are stuck in the past epoch and are unable to comprehend the new time. Such a conflict is a completely natural and really social phenomenon - life is changing, especially rapidly in our time, and each new generation is formed in completely different conditions than the previous one. “Fathers” poorly understand the thinking of ‘children’, and what to speak of mutual understanding between ‘grandfathers’ and ‘grandchildren’. In former times, numerous wars and diseases “cleared” the space for the next generations. And in the last 80 years, antibiotics and relatively peaceful coexistence of the world community, excluded these, excuse me, stabilizing factors from the natural state of affairs. Conceptually, what we have today is not the second coming of Trump, but another representative of the “grandfathers,” only from the industrial wing. Under Trump, the United States will cling to its positions with the same “grandfatherly” methods as the globalists. Although, Trump, as well as the decrepit Clintonistas, are the “last of the Mohicans.” However, we who grew up as “dialectical materialists” understand perfectly well that the declared deadlock will not happen. Life will take its course. First, the Mohicans will be gone. As early as 2028, new leaders will emerge in both parties, two generations younger than today's leaders, who will be ready to take power by 2032. Second, America will go through an economic and financial crisis over the next few years that will provoke a profound reassessment of its real position in the world, its forgotten values, and its future. The remnants of the old elites clinging to ideas of global dominance will be swept away by the crisis. They will be followed by a completely different, younger generation that sees the world, America, and its friends and enemies in a completely different way. We have every chance to fight for this generation of “grandchildren”-Americans ready to deny the “grandfathers”-globalists who split the world and the country. Who will these new people be? The U.S. two-party system, made primarily to mobilize for elections, is flexible enough to survive and adjust even to radical changes in course and personalities. In all likelihood, one of its poles will be the young Democrats, inspired by the ideas of Roosevelt, whose reign is just about to turn 100 years old. Their course is to make large public investments to build the infrastructure of the next generation and to recreate the American middle class on this basis, and with it, a profound overhaul of education and health care. On the Republican side, we are likely to see followers of Ilon Musk, business people who are eager to write off past problems as “Washington swamp” and build a new generation of Great America. Their ideas for an early break with the past will resonate broadly with Americans. Despite the ideological contradictions between the new Rooseveltians and the businessmen, both groups came into politics to “save America”. The practical side of their programs is quite similar - the creation of new infrastructure and investment in science and education - could become the basis for a new political consensus aimed at bringing the U.S. out of the existential crisis that had been going on for almost two decades. It is very likely that by that time America, having significantly reduced its global presence and much more deeply immersed in domestic problems, will be able and willing to negotiate with Russia and other actors a new balance of power and new principles of international security based on justice, respect, and mutual understanding. Let us hope that this will be their CONCEPT. In conclusion about our CONCEPT. I am sure, no matter how banal it may sound, we simply have no other option. Make way for the young! This is our VISION.

Andrey Bezrukov