World War I, World War II, the Cold War, the fall of the USSR, the rise (and failure) of the European Union - all are conflicts in which Europe was central or primary, and all involved a battle of ideologies. The undeniable but totally unreported failure of the European Union combined with the staying power of China means the verdict is in: the ideology of liberalism has lost.
Is this the new “end of history”?
The nationalist view of modern history obscures the fact that it is ideologies which matter, not borders. Ideologies are what produce and define management systems - i.e. governments - and it’s crystal clear that the last 15 years have seen the socialist-inspired management system (China, Iran, North Korea and to a lesser extent Russia) defeat the liberalism-inspired management system economically, militarily and politically. Liberalism is at a Great Depression-level nadir in terms of global admiration.
The French Revolution was not French imperialism whatsoever but an idea: that feudalism must end. World War I was an idea: that liberalism - with its components of imperialism and high finance domination - was at least better than absolute monarchism. World War II was an idea: that both liberalism and socialism must be toppled by nationalist-corporatist fascism, but fascism lost and was absorbed by the liberalist camp. The Cold War was an idea: that liberalism and socialism cannot coexist, and - in the battlefield of Europe only - socialism lost. The “unipolar world” was an idea: that liberalism will usher in the “end of history” after (allegedly) defeating socialism and absorbing monarchism and fascism.
The ideology of liberalism viewed Europe in the 1990s as a rabid imperialist would view the moon if it had oxygen and water: virgin space to create a new world. The pan-European project was indeed this new world, as it is more liberalist in conception than even the United States. The EU/Eurozone was supposed to be liberalism’s highest, most shining city on a hill.
I was re-reading Sergey Glazyev’s influential article Patterns Of Formation And Disappearance Of Global Economic Poles from Spring 2023. Glazyev is a longtime post-communist Russian politician, economist and the current Commissioner for Integration and Macroeconomics within the Eurasian Economic Commission. He is often called among the top few potential successors to Putin, and his article is outstanding - something Xi and Khamenei could come up with but never Trump or Biden. It provides a major distillation of the new multipolar view of the world, and via some excellent and unique historical perspectives which are simply beyond the ken of most Western analysts.
In it he describes - but only if you really read it closely, as he only mentions this at the very end - what I’ll call a “Imperial vs. Integral thesis”. The latter worldview is being implemented by a diversity- and sovereignty-accepting China - this is exemplified by its multinational and multicultural Belt and Road project - to replace the Imperial worldview of the diminishing West. It is the rejecting of international cooperation which is the very essence of competitive liberalism and imperialism, after all - they don’t even work together among their own bloc, as evidenced by the plundering/self-immolation of the EU.
He quotes late-20th century Italian economist Giovanni Arrighi’s use of a “World Economic Order” concept and relays his summation of the succession of the most dominant poles of the global economy since the discovery of the Western Hemisphere: “Spanish-Genovese (Genoa financed the Spanish expeditions), Dutch, English and American ruling elites, now superseded by the Chinese communists.” In short, the management efficiency of the systems (not just their elites, as Glazyev repeatedly says) of these poles became dominant, propelled global economic development and -crucially - served as a model for other countries.
“They (the dominant pole) also serve as a model for periphery countries, which try to catch up with the leader by importing the institutions imposed by it. Therefore, the institutional system of the world economy permeates the reproduction of the entire world economy in the unity of its national, regional and international components.”
The pan-European project is precisely explained here: Europe took American liberalism as their model as a way “to catch up” with the US, but it has been nothing but catastrophe and open failure.
“The institutions of the leading country, which have a dominant influence on the international institutions that regulate the world market and international trade, economic and financial relations, are of primary importance.”
But what do you do when the institutions of the leading country no longer provide a workable model? Then you have the Western world in 2024, and this is why the failure of the EU/Eurozone is the biggest story of our century thus far: Liberalism’s efficiency has declined, and to the point where different models which were once on the periphery have proven to have qualitatively more efficient modes and institutions - socialist democracy - and they are now acquiring global dominance.
Glazyev writes that these management systems are so different that they have only transitioned from one to the other via a major war and social revolution, in order to crush the obsolete management system. This is what happened to - if I can give some examples - the feudal system in 1789, the slave/colony based economy in 1865 and the system of absolute monarchy in 1918. It is their refusal to adopt the more efficient, and always more moral and democratic (Glazyev stresses neither of these latter two critical components), system of governance that leads to the stagnation and decline of the once-dominant “World Economic Models” (WEM): “…the core countries of the old WEM are plunging into a structural crisis and depression caused by excessive concentration of capital in the obsolete productions of the former technological mode.”
This particular version the pan-European project is precisely this over-investment in an obsolete mode, and that mode is liberalism.
Lastly, in an interesting section Glazyev astutely notes that outside of Arrighi’s analysis of World Economic Model dominance does indeed stand Russia.
“As a result of this competition, a global leader emerges and steadily increases its dominance. Besides them, there is also Russia, which maintains its global influence in various political forms throughout the period under consideration, whose historical role Arrighi has completely ignored.”
This is what I mean by analyses which are simply beyond the ken of most Western analysts: huge chunks of the world are often simply omitted by them in their “global” analyses.
Glazyev is entirely right: he notes that from 1492 on the people of Rus held an empire that was really not much inferior to any other of the pole leaders - Imperial Spain, the seafaring Dutch, the English, the Americans and now the Chinese are not so very much more advanced than mighty Russia, no? Western-centric historians, politicians and analysts have ignored this fact of history, and many even blithely accepted the stupidities of John McCain’s gallingly ignorant description of Russia as a “a giant gas station pretending to be a real country”.
Even Arrighi never considered: What about Russia? Indeed, but to Glazyev I could say: would about Persia/Iran, whom he barely mentions?
Why can the US not crush or control tiny Iran, which McCain probably called “a giant gas station pretending to be a mosque”? Iran has not been crushed - despite all the decades of hot and cold war - obviously because of the superior efficiency of the Iranian system of management. This is not a nationalist answer I am giving; I am giving this reply to show that post-communist Glazyev is occasionally thinking in terms of nationalism and patriotic interests and not ideology. Few are interested in looking into why Iran has not been crushed despite all the efforts, and pardon me for saying that my book on Iranian Islamic Socialism aimed to detail exactly why Iran’s unique (revolutionary) management style has been so efficient.
Glazyev’s key mistakes, probably caused by adhesion to liberalism
We must correct Glazyev’s over-excited relegating of the US into a complete non-pole of global power. Centuries of stolen wages and plunder simply don’t evaporate, and no nation is going to violently repossess much of America’s property. So let’s say that Glazyev is really talking about a tripolar system here in his vision of the future, and he basically admits as much later:
“…The bipolar core of the new (integral) IEU (note: IEU is used the same as World Economic Model), with communist (China) and democratic (India) poles, whose competition will produce half of the GDP growth. […] Finally, the third variety of the new world economic order is determined by the interests of a financial oligarchy that aspires to world domination. It is accomplished through liberal globalization, which consists of the obfuscation of national institutions of economic regulation and the subordination of its reproduction to the interests of international capital. The dominant position in the structure of the latter is occupied by a few dozen intertwined American-European family clans that control the major financial holdings, power structures, intelligence services, media, political parties and the apparatus of executive power.”
India, China and the West - choose your “World Economic Model” to follow.
A couple problems, however,
Firstly Glazyev both correctly and incorrectly estimates India. However, his analysis is mostly praiseworthy in perceiving that India is a huge part of the global future, which most Westerners simply cannot admit.
He notes that India’s constitution openly declares it to be a socialist republic (Indian Constitution: India is a “sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic”), and he notes that in 1969 India nationalised their banks. Where Glazyev errs is by believing that India is still “democratic” - and Glazyev clearly implies that he means “liberal democratic”, as he holds Switzerland up as a sort of equal to Indian “democracy” because of their use of referendums. The two are not the same whatsoever, and this is a false grouping by Glazyev - should Switzerland ever nationalise their private banks the rest of the liberal West would immediately invade and retake their ill-gotten gains.
He also errs by believing that by being “communist” China is NOT democratic - this is completely false, as China simply follows the model, rules, mores and structures of socialist democracy and not liberal democracy. Glazyev, being a very successful post-communist Russian liberal democratic politician, apparently does not believe that China can be both socialist and democratic, and he also believes that India is “democratic” even though nationalising their banks is not just anathema but even war-provoking for any liberal “democratic” country.
Glazyev also persists in the maddening, widespread refusal to call “liberalism” simply “liberalism”. There is NO difference between “globalism” and “liberalism” in the sense that - as Marx essentially noted in 1848 France - both are run by and for the 1%. A “financial oligarchy that aspires to world domination… which consists of the obfuscation of national institutions of economic regulation and the subordination of its reproduction to the interests of international capital” - this is what liberalism has been for over 175 years! So we must realise that Glazyev fails to make the correct distinctions between “liberalism” and “socialism”, but getting this wrong is what non-socialists do all the time, in their effort obfuscate the awful failed project which is 175+ years of liberalism.
Important points indeed, but the larger point to make here is that Glazyev is correct in seeing the future as a three-way fight between the models of left-wing socialism (China), right-wing socialism (India) and liberalism.
And, as he notes, much like the earlier fight between socialism (USSR), liberalism (USA) and fascism (Germany) this is another battle of three where only two poles can prevail.
Similarly, in 1914 there were also three poles - socialism, liberalism and monarchism - and monarchism would be absorbed by liberalism. To socialists monarchism is, of course, anathema. The same goes for fascism - absorbed by liberalism, anathema to socialism.
But it’s this exposure of liberalism as the now-clearly inefficient governmental mode which is so historically vital for us to understand and proclaim today. Liberalism is the now-discredited, obviously inefficient WEM which is on its way out historically.
The defeat of Ukraine on the battlefield has shown that liberalism - with all its imperialist menace and all its tax revenue fascistically devoted their military - cannot fight against the more efficient socialist-inspired (on the military-economic planning level) Russia. The victory of China on the economic field since 2008 has shown that liberalism cannot fight against the more efficient socialist-inspired model there either. As Glazyev writes:
“The reasons for the PRC’s superior performance lie in the institutional structure of the new WEM (World Economic Model/management system), which ensures qualitatively more efficient management of economic development. By combining the institutions of central planning and market competition, the new world economic order demonstrates a quantum leap in the efficiency of socio-economic development management compared to the world order systems that preceded it: the Soviet one, with directive planning and total statism, and the American one, dominated by the financial oligarchy and transnational corporations.”
Simply look at what China builds and what the US builds - there is a quantum leap in the efficiency of socio-economic development of socialist-inspired nations versus liberal-inspired nations. Simply look at modern Iran’s trains and highways - there is nothing in the US to compare with it because liberalism has become inefficient; it has fallen behind; there are now CLEARLY superior models. With the advent of the digital world - and now the AI world - the computations are only getting faster and more obvious: liberalism may be able to beat the old colonial/hacienda system, but bourgeois financial capitalism is not more efficient than socialist-inspired systems.
This is all clear and undeniable, as is the victory of Russia over the combined efforts of the liberal West in Ukraine.
Glazyev, perhaps as a liberal politician, almost totally does not discuss either imperialism or morality - the former because that would expose the true hidden basis of liberalism’s alleged “efficiency”: “S. Huntington admitted, ‘not because of the superiority of their ideas, moral values or religion (to which few other civilizations have been converted), but rather because of superiority in the use of organized violence.’” The latter is not discussed because morality is excised from liberalism, which claims to be the most “moral” economic mode mainly via constant false demonisation other modes. For liberalism (think of “Fordism” in the book Brave New World) efficiency is the highest morality - so we an say that even on liberalism’s own terms it is now clearly “immoral” to be a liberalist.
Glazyev gets a lot right - it’s a superb article - but one of the things he fails at is pointing out the absolute failure of liberalism as evidenced by the perpetually stagnant Europe. Does this omission mean Russia is going to make the same mistake as Iran did?
Significantly, Glazyev has failed to learn from Iran and their failed JCPOA thesis that Europe would break away from Washington on issues of primary foreign policy importance if Europe’s interests were greatly threatened. Europe did not break away even though Iran offered it excellent, mutually-beneficial terms, and we see how Europe did not break away even as Washington demands Europe impoverish itself - via inflation, via gutting their reserves of arms, via destroying their reputation in the Global South - with its incredibly self-harming policy towards the war in Ukraine.
Glazyev makes a major error in his conclusion by classifying Europe thusly in his final, prognosticating section, titled “Pole configuration of the new economic order”:
“The wandering between the cores of the old and new (World Economic Models), the European Union, Turkey, and the Arab world, whose chances for world influence will depend on their ability to break free from U.S. dictates.”
The EU is no “wanderer” - they have proven themselves to be a 51st state over and over, and this is because the question is not nationalist but ideological: the advent of the European Union totally ended the communist eastern half and the social democratic western half - Europe is a liberal bloc through and through now. From structure to practice - from soup to nuts and all courses in between - the difference between what a pan-European project might be (1948-2008) and what the pan-European project definitely is (2009-today) is undeniable and clear.
The error in including Europe in this grouping is to make the same “mistake” that Iran made: the EU is no wanderer but is totally allied to Washington even if it costs them. It is a toxic marriage, but Iran proved that it is a marriage nonetheless.
This marriage would be impossible were Europe divided into over two dozen nations, but the European Union has been a working - if also inefficient - political reality since 2009.
Should Europe somehow abandon Washington and thus abandon the liberalism which guides its very governance and structures, this could only be done in a true revolution which ends this version of the pan-European project and sets the project a new, more progressive course. The ideology at fault here is not “pan-Europeanism” but the same old liberalism versus socialism.
Are we assuming that Europe will “realize” that socialism is the more efficient mode of governance before the US does? Why? The two are joined because they are liberal capitalist imperialists through and through.
Glazyev’s ultimate answer, essentially, is that new Global South organisations such as BRICS will practically supersede or simply ignore (as the West does) the United Nations.
“The association of countries in large international organizations such as the SCO and BRICS represents a qualitatively new model of cooperation that honors diversity in contrast to the universal forms of liberal globalization. Its core principle is firm support for universally recognized principles and norms of international law and rejection of policies of coercive pressure and infringement on the sovereignty of other states. The principles of the international order, shared by the countries of the emerging ‘core’ of the new world order, are fundamentally different from those characteristic of previous world orders shaped by Western European civilization….”
It’s good that the Commissioner for Integration and Macroeconomics within the Eurasian Economic Commission has such high hopes. We can simply look at the UN’s inability to merely rein in Israel’s latest invasion of Gaza as proof of the UN’s structural fecklessness.
There is no doubt that the liberal West, with its centuries of stolen wages, will retain major influence, but there is also no doubt that their “World Economic Model” is crumbling in comparison to socialist-inspired nations. It’s clearer every day that this is obvious, and that liberalism will not be emulated much longer by the periphery, only imposed, orchestrated and smuggled.
China proved this economically, Russia proved this militarily and Iran has proved this spiritually - liberalism is, to put kindly, no longer an “efficient model”.
It’s an amazing time to be alive - if you’re a socialist. The real and existential chaos of non-socialists is palpable, deserved and entirely avoidable.
<—>
Ramin Mazaheri is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. His latest book is France's Yellow Vests: Western Repression of the West's Best Values. He is also the author of ‘Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’ as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese. Any reposting or republication of any of these articles is approved and appreciated. He tweets at @RaminMazaheri2 and writes at substack.com/@raminmazaheri
Thank you Ramin for your invaluable insight.
I would like you to point you to a small success of socialism in the EU. There is a small country in the periphery that recently elected a social democrat government and this weekend also a matching president. This is quite unique in EUstan as these are political forces quite different than the rest of the "left" in the EU. This was illustrated by the fact that the governing party was - as a matter of congratulation for their election victory in the national elections - expelled from the "socialist" faction in the EU parliament for not being sufficiently focused on the new "left" orthodoxy in EUstan (the blue yellow and rainbow variety) and instead pledging traditional left values.
This country is of course Slovakia.
Economics is the objective, ideology is a tool. To turn ideology into an objective is to ignore human needs/wants, i.e. Maslow Hierarchy of Needs