Harmonious Economics or The New World Order. Vladimir Emelyanovich Chabanov
the humans will end up aliens in this World. If within the Universal Harmony Space, the humans remain egoistic, disharmonious, parasitic, alienated in their very essence, the World will estrange them. Without any doubt, neither benefit by all means, nor accumulation of currency, nor the adoration of fetishes, ideals or idols may be accepted as the purpose of human existence. Neither Nature, nor God need such a man.
Regarding this, economics, just as the Universe in general, has strict rules and restrictions. Though many of them have not been discovered yet this does not mean that they do not function. The economy must work in full accordance with the supreme laws of philosophy and mathematics and fulfil its functions. It acts as an essential component of the Basic World Knowledge and assists in the harmonisation of life. Indeed, as ancient Hindus believed that “lack of understanding of harmony makes life ugly’, and they were not alone.
Overview of economics from the global structure perspective allows defining more fully its role and place within the whole system of the World; identify its basic purpose and use it as guidance for assessing the efficiency and usefulness of any economic activities.
Needless to say, current economic theory is far from the above-described image. This alienates it from the entire Natural structure and entails numerous deviations from the reality.
On the other hand, every solid theory should have a firm foundation. As long as the aim of economy is profit, it will be based on human avidity that all peoples equally share. That is why modern economy has turned out functionally universal. However, if economy is supposed to work for the people’s wellbeing, then it is impossible to ignore their opportunities and capabilities, tastes and preferences, beliefs and morals. This, in turn, renders economy subjective, makes it dependent on people, their cultural demands, civilisation principles, and motivations.
In reality, the need for the unity of traditions, spiritual and economic life of every peoples is undoubted, as it is the condition for the increased material efficiency coupled with a developed and enhanced spiritual component. Indeed, no country in the world can afford satisfying its economic demands without recurring to all of its natural, human and organisational assets. Moreover, no country can afford ignoring its own weaknesses. For this reason, a universal efficient economic model is not feasible, just as a medicine to cure all known diseases.
Foreign experience is useful, provided that it is applied cautiously. In fact, efficient economy can only be national, as it should reflect the state of the country, the mentality of its people, as well as their historic traditions and legacy. Besides, it goes without saying that such economy should be integrated in the world economic system, without, for that matter, losing its identity or harming its people. It is comparable to a person who lives in a society while preserving their individuality. “Political economy should take the national idea as the starting point and teach how this particular nation… can preserve and improve its economic situation’ (S. Yu. Vitte, President of the Russian Council of Ministers in 1905—1906).
This rule is observed in the modern world, too. For instance, American capitalism is based on the key priorities of the American nations: engagement, individualism, worship of personal initiative, and uncompromising struggle for money and power. It is well known that the US has gathered all the planet’s individualists in one place. These people have voluntarily broken with their origins, becoming outcasts without any link to the land that bore them. They have demonstrated what a person free of national and class prejudices, free of traditions, centuries-old culture and affections is capable of.
Such people have built a powerful state and a unique civilisation. Moreover, as true pragmatists, they enabled an unprecedented flourishing of material culture. They have reduced social relations to an absurdity; this “capitalist’ type of relations has become the very symbol of such economy. All the thoughts of such people have been subordinated to money, rationalism, and consumption. Thus, they managed to formalize and, successively, to impoverish the human aspirations and relationships, and to substitute the priorities.
The Japanese are distinguished among other peoples by their strict obedience to discipline, hard work, industriousness, responsibility, conscientiousness, honesty, patriotism, and attachment to their company. Japanese statehood is built upon the culture of the family, corporate and social relations and hierarchies inherent to the Japanese people. It is based on an innate understanding of the benefits of reasonable administration, of the Oriental philosophy, of the century-old traditions, of the unique writing system, phonetics and linguistic system of the Japanese language, and, by consequence, of the thinking associated with it.
German capitalism is supported by honesty, exactness, discipline, labour culture of the Germans; by thorough planning and regulation of all elements organisational elements. Chinese economy employs ancient culture, diligence and conscientiousness of its people, etc. This is why, while many economic models share similar names, in essence they are strikingly different one from the other. And this precisely lets them complete with each other successfully. It is evident that if German economy were guided by American interests, and Japan or the US followed German traditions, none of them would have any positive results.
Similarly, Russian people equally have typical, distinguishing organisational and national features. There exist Russian attitudes to life, labour, and corporate relationship that do reflect the national character and traditions. These attitudes rely on the specific traits of the Russian people that are at the source of the Russian culture, history and moral principles. The Russians can, like no other nation, work in small groups, forming harmonious collaborations, where each member can fully realize their capabilities, allowing a maximum efficiency of the collective effort.
In the light of the foregoing, in the following sections we will study the civilisational differences of various cultures to determine their common and divergent points. Only after such analysis will it be possible to work out the preferable economic principles for people living across the globe to fully reflect their expectations and cultures, while conforming to the laws of the Universe.
1.1.2. Differences between western and eastern cultures and their influence on the economic structure
Oh, East is East, and West is West, and never the twain shall meet.12
R. Kipling
Let us proceed with the study of the profound differences that exist between civilisations. The theory of hierarchy of civilisations that presupposes the supremacy of some civilisations and the backwardness of the others is by far disputable. In reality, as Honoré de Balzac wrote, “Things that we admire in Europe are punishable in Asia, and a vice in Paris becomes a necessity when you have passed the Azores. There are no such things as hard-and-fast rules; there are only conventions adapted to the climate’13.
At the same time, significant differences in the lifestyle of peoples cannot fail to influence their economic organisation. Indeed, the overall purpose of economy is to provide people with the means of existence. This objective serves as an incentive as well as a source of well-being for nations. No nation or people could survive if they did not employ their entire life potential, including natural, intellectual, and cultural potential. Otherwise they would not be able to make the best of their advantages and curb their weaknesses, would not aspire for economic structure that conforms most with their mentality. And, consequently, people would fail to preserve their specific mentality. It is well known that a good gambler does not always win at chess. In this light, as Joseph E. Stiglitz believed “Each country should have its own economic policy based on the specific characteristics of this country; there can be no common, universal policy for all reforming countries’14 [16].
In order to prove this affirmation, we shall consider the fundamental differences of such distinct cultures as eastern and western cultures. Their most conspicuous representatives are the European and the Indian
Cit. ex E. C. Stedman, ed.,
Cit. ex H. de Balzac,
[