Professor Katsasonov: What are the subtle differences between Putin and Trump's expressions of sovereignty?
"The Controllers of Money" manage various countries in different ways
Author: Valentin Katsasonov
For many years, the call for Russia to regain its sovereignty has been echoing at high-level forums in Russia. Sometimes people even believed that we had achieved sovereignty. Unfortunately, wishes were often mistaken for reality.
A misconception arose that national sovereignty could coexist with the socio-economic structures that have existed since the establishment of the Russian Federation. While there is frequent talk about sovereignty, there is an unspoken taboo regarding the mention of the socio-economic structures that have formed in our country, which are referred to as "capitalism." Today, almost all countries in the world are moving along the path of capitalism.
Russian President Vladimir Putin broke this taboo at the 2021 "Valdai" International Forum. Below is a fragment of his speech: "Human social and economic problems have become so severe that they once triggered global upheavals (wars, revolutions)... Everyone says that the existing capitalist model - which forms the basis of the social structure in most countries today - has reached its end. It is impossible to escape the dilemma of contradictions under this model... Unequal distribution of material wealth has led to increasingly severe inequality..."
The president touched upon an important aspect of capitalism here - the uneven (and some might say unfair) distribution of wealth and material resources among people. It can be inferred that he was not only referring to unequal distribution within individual countries but also between nations. Socio-economic inequality is just one manifestation of the "contradiction dilemma" of capitalism mentioned by Putin.
Another manifestation is that leaders of almost all countries claim their independence or fight for national independence. In other words, they all talk about national sovereignty. Sovereignty and independence are closely related concepts. Sometimes, sovereignty is defined as prioritizing national interests in domestic and foreign policies.
In fact, former U.S. President Donald Trump also proclaimed and continues to proclaim American national sovereignty. Admittedly, he rarely uses the word "sovereignty." For example, during his first term in 2017, Trump said at the United Nations General Assembly in New York: "Sovereignty, security, and prosperity - these are the three great pillars supporting the world." He also called on all countries to defend their sovereignty.
Trump has repeatedly explained the famous "Make America Great Again" (MAGA) slogan, whose core is prioritizing America's national interests. His predecessors in the White House forgot this priority, so he would strive to restore it.
Some American politicians have a more acute assessment of the state of American national sovereignty. They believe that American sovereignty has been weakened and even completely lost. For instance, in 2022, U.S. Representative Mike D. Rogers submitted a bill for discussion to the lower house of Congress titled the "American Sovereignty Restoration Act." The drafters of the document believe that joining the United Nations (UN) deprived America of its sovereignty. The main idea of the document is that America should immediately withdraw from the UN.
In Trump's circles and among his supporters, they also discuss the issue of American national sovereignty more frankly and conclude that America has lost much of its sovereignty. America did not lose its sovereignty because it is a member of the UN; rather, it is because it is under the control of what is called the "deep state." Many politicians and experts in the U.S. believe that since the passage of the Federal Reserve System Act by the U.S. Congress in late December 1913, America has lost its sovereignty. Since then, the Federal Reserve (FRS) has controlled America, and this has been over a century.
I particularly focus on the American example to emphasize that even this country, known as the "superpower," which virtually gives orders to all other countries, does not have very stable sovereignty. What about other countries? This includes Russia as well.
Let us look at Russia's economy. Russia's economy is open to the world because almost all barriers hindering the cross-border flow of goods, currency, capital, and labor have been removed. Therefore, Russia's economy is managed by "controllers of money" (main shareholders of the Federal Reserve) through transnational corporations (TNC) and transnational banks (TNB). Moreover, organizations such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank (WB), Bank for International Settlements (BIS), and World Trade Organization (WTO) are involved. Finally, the dominant role in this management system is played by global rating agencies and the "Big Four" audit firms. The system of external management of countries by "controllers of money" has been gradually established over the past century. At the turn of the 1980s and 1990s, our country was also incorporated into this management system.
So, how do we free ourselves from this management and restore lost sovereignty? Some patriotic politicians and experts propose different measures.
First, exit the aforementioned international financial and economic organizations (International Monetary Fund, World Bank, Bank for International Settlements, World Trade Organization, etc.).
Second, de-offshore Russia's economy (a significant portion of Russian companies, especially large ones, are still registered in offshore jurisdictions; these offshore regions are under the control of the U.S., the UK, and the Netherlands).
Third, reduce the presence of foreign capital in Russia's economy (including direct investment, securities investment, and other forms). Ideally, reduce it to zero.
Fourth, impose restrictions or even bans on the free cross-border flow of goods, currency, capital, and labor. These resource flows should be placed under state control. Preferably, implement controls similar to the "state foreign trade monopoly" (GMWT) and "state monetary monopoly" (GCM) of the Soviet era.
I am listing some of the most crucial and urgent steps. Fairly, it must be acknowledged that attempts have been made over more than thirty years since the establishment of the Russian Federation to take these and other measures to restore sovereignty in the economic sphere.
In the State Duma, there have been countless attempts to pass decisions to withdraw from the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and other international organizations. However, all these attempts have been thwarted by opponents of these decisions. Not a single initiative has ultimately resulted in the passage of corresponding laws.
For example, in January 2024, the State Duma rejected the federal law draft No. 281874-8, "On De-offshoring," initiated by a group of deputies from the "Fair Russia" faction.
There are also initiatives that struggle forward - like small grass growing stubbornly through thick asphalt layers. For instance, a week after the start of the special military operation and the subsequent anti-Russian sanctions, Vladimir Putin signed a series of decrees aimed at restoring currency controls and strengthening control over the cross-border flow of capital. As a result, the ruble exchange rate began to strengthen rapidly, creating unprecedented situations. If in March 2022, the average exchange rate of USD to RUB was 104 rubles, it dropped to 57 rubles by June. Subsequently, the ruble exchange rate slowly began to fall again. By the end of 2023, the USD to RUB exchange rate sometimes even fell to 100 rubles. And all of this happened because the requirements of the presidential decrees gradually faded away. Everything started to return to the starting point.
Therefore, I conclude: Most attempts to restore Russia's economic sovereignty have been stifled before they could truly begin. Those initiatives that eventually prompted authorities to make certain decisions were also withdrawn after some time. In the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the word "sovereignty" is clearly stipulated. Article 3 states: "The sovereign bearer and sole source of power in the Russian Federation is its multinational people." Article 4 states: "Russia's sovereignty covers its entire territory." On paper, Russia is sovereign, but in reality, there are almost no signs of sovereignty's existence.
Russia's special military operation prompted state institutions to start thinking about Russia's national sovereignty. This operation triggered a nearly open war against Russia by the Western collective. In June 2023, the "Special Report of the Committee of the Council of the Russian Federation on Protecting National Sovereignty and Preventing Interference in Russia's Internal Affairs: Characteristics of Russia's Protection of National Sovereignty in 2022-2023" was released. This is an important document spanning 52 pages! I only focus on Chapter IV, titled "Financial-Economic Aspects of Russia's Countermeasures During the Special Military Operation." On pages 33 to 34, it is mentioned that to strengthen (restore) economic sovereignty, the following measures need to be taken. There are 14 points:
1) Increase domestic demand; 2) Eliminate inter-departmental divisions; 3) Establish new foreign economic ties and trade routes; 4) Develop Siberia; 5) Industrial development; 6) Industrial clusters; 7) Favorable procurement of high-tech equipment; 8) Control inflation; 9) Economic de-offshoring; 10) Ensure business freedom; 11) Attract capital to high-tech enterprises; 12) Develop new regions of the state; 13) Treasury credit; 14) New welfare payments and social preferential policies, raise minimum wage standards, increase tax exemptions.
Of these 14 points, only one (economic de-offshoring) relates to restoring economic sovereignty. The remaining 13 points belong entirely to different "categories." This is how Russian senators understand national sovereignty and its restoration pathways. But unfortunately, in the lower house of the Federal Parliament, except for individual exceptions, it is equally unclear.
"Controllers of Money" do not need a sovereign Russia. Therefore, they prevent or "offset" any initiatives to restore Russia's sovereignty through their agents in various ways. Or they prepare empty documents to pretend to work towards restoring sovereignty.
Let us return to the issue of Russia's socio-economic structure. This is capitalism. If expressed in the language of "Marxist classics," it is an economic foundation based on capitalism, with an appropriate superstructure. The economic foundation of capitalism is primarily private capitalist ownership of the means of production. This allows private capital to acquire surplus value. A portion of the surplus value is used to maintain the political superstructure, which protects private capitalist ownership of the means of production and provides the most favorable conditions for capital to acquire surplus value. Boris Berezovsky, who has long been forgotten, once expressed his thoughts on the relationship between power and capital: "Capital... hires power to serve it. This form of hiring is called 'election'."
I do not rule out (even firmly believe) that there are patriotic individuals in Russia's political superstructure who care about the issue of national sovereignty. But their practical effects are extremely low. Moreover, sometimes their activities can even bring danger.
It is very important that people in our society realize that they live under the capitalist system. Only then will people understand that striving for Russia's national sovereignty without eliminating capitalism (private capitalist ownership of the means of production) is akin to "Sisyphus' labor" (an endless and fruitless task).
In my view, in Russia (and indeed in almost any other country), discussions of sovereignty should begin with a well-known argument: "Capital has no homeland." Another phrase from Marxist classics: "Capital is stateless." Over the past century and a half, many politicians, journalists, and writers have repeated this view in different ways. One sentence comes from our contemporary writer Viktor Pelevin: "Financial capital has neither homeland nor nationality; it moves like a blind bug chasing food, heading toward maximizing profits." ("Pineapple Juice for Beautiful Ladies")
I want to mention Lenin's work "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" (1916) again. In fact, this book discusses how small and medium-sized capital transforms into monopoly capital. When capital becomes monopoly capital, it acquires an international or, as some say, cosmopolitan nature.
The most cosmopolitan is financial capital, which is the product of the fusion of industrial capital and bank capital. Pre-revolutionary Russia, despite its grand title of "Russian Empire," had already begun to lose its sovereignty. For detailed content on this, you can read my book "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism: A Century of Transformation (1916-2016)" (Moscow: Oxygen Press, 2016).
As for how Russia quickly restored its national sovereignty in the economic sphere and became a major economic power in the world, you can find answers in my book "Stalin's Economy" (Moscow: Institute of Russian Civilization, 2016). Briefly put, our country's sovereignty was restored by eliminating private capital. Stalin knew well that national sovereignty and capitalism are incompatible.
Original source: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7495678786919252534/
Disclaimer: This article solely represents the author's views. Feel free to express your stance by clicking the "Top" or "Downvote" buttons below.