The window of opportunity that has now opened for the Moldovan economy
And this new paradigm has been promoted for several years by the financial oligarchy under the auspices of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, under the code name “Global Reset.” It envisions humanity’s transition to transhumanism, the renunciation of all property, family, homeland, history, culture, travel, and so on, and the replacement of all traditional values and ways of life through a total fusion of everything—countries, peoples, cultures, races, genders, DNA, meanings—or rather, their complete abolition. Essentially, it entails the rejection of the concept of “human,” the very condition of being human, and humanity itself, transforming people into mindless, spineless atoms, serving as biorobots that ensure the absolute power of the families that make up the global financial oligarchy. In other words, it entails the application of Trotskyist doctrine , modernized in accordance with modern digital, biological, and socio-information technologies.
Not all economic and political forces in the world were prepared for such a radical shift and, consequently, began to resist, putting forward their own new, alternative paradigm for the functioning of the global economy. This explains the serious, fierce struggle unfolding around the person of Donald Trump in the very citadel of global monopoly capitalism, or, more accurately, the citadel of imperialism – the United States. The trade war that began just these days, the looming revision of sanctions policy not only toward Russia, the announced audit or even the liquidation of the Federal Reserve System’s current status as the issuer of the dollar – all these and other less visible movements clearly indicate the beginning of a paradigm shift in the global economy.
It’s clear that Trump represents precisely those forces that have decided to resist neo-Trotskyism , represented by Carl Schwab, David Soros, Bill Gates, and other lesser-known activists of the neoliberal paradigm and its transformation into transhumanism through the dehumanization of humanity. These forces, which control the EU, Great Britain and its Commonwealth (Canada, Australia, New Zealand), and through the EU, various colonial administrations such as the Republic of Moldova, Ukraine, Armenia, parts of Kazakhstan, and many other semi-colonial countries, have also organized and launched an increasingly structural attack on the industrial capital that stands behind Trump and fuels his stated initiatives.
The tectonic shifts that have begun at the global level—both economic and geopolitical—will inevitably lead to tectonic shifts in the geoeconomic order. All of these changes open an unprecedented window of strategic opportunity for small countries and their collapsed economies to emerge from their current colonial state under the control of the neoliberal paradigm. The alternative paradigm promoted by industrial capital, due to the inescapable territorial attachment of industrial production (the territorial localization of raw materials and energy, production facilities, etc.) and, simultaneously, the impossibility of ensuring monopolistic military control over all industrial locations, predetermines the geopolitical and, consequently, economic multipolarity of the future global economy. This, in turn, presupposes its multi-structured nature, both in terms of the differences in economic structures between the geopolitical poles and within each of them.
So, the global system has now entered a process of deglobalization. Or, more accurately, multiglobalization . The fact is that globalization, as we have known it since the collapse of the bipolar world system, reflected a political-economic model of the global economy operating in the interests of the global financial oligarchy – the so-called “Financial International.” In other words, the globalization we knew was unified, or rather, unitary , under a single institutional governance.
The process of exhausting all possible reserves of this model, felt by all willing and, especially, unwilling participants in this model, forces all other subject economies to develop their own alternative models of global survival, i.e., survival in a global world. This process of development can be called multiglobalization , as it is multivariate in its simultaneity.
This window of opportunity has opened for Moldova as a country and as an “economy,” as a society, and as a potential people. Currently, after nearly 35 years of mockery of everything related to the concepts of “Moldova,” “Moldovan,” or “Moldovans” (whether “Moldovan-Romanians” or “Moldovan- non-Romanians “—it doesn’t matter), Moldovan society and its economy are in a half-dead state.
The Roots of the Metastasis of the Moldovan Economy
Moldovan society is a victim of the Moldovan economy. One could also say the opposite: the Moldovan economy is a victim of Moldovan society. Both statements are correct. And here’s why. What we commonly call the Moldovan economy reflects the disastrous results of that very privatization that took place between 1994 and 2000. And no one from the political class (or rather, political activists , since Moldova lacks a political class as a bearer of sovereignty) of this society or its scientific community (if such a thing still exists) wants to correct these results or even consider their causes. This is precisely why, ever since, we have been floundering in the same socioeconomic metastasis, the roots of which extend back to the predatory privatization of those years. In other words, privatization sacrificed society.
But society itself gave birth to that very privatization when, back in February 1994, it chose the Agrarian Democratic Party of Moldova over the then -Social Democratic Party, which represented mutually exclusive privatization programs/models: oligarchic privatization versus people’s privatization. And the dystrophic economy generated by oligarchic privatization is gradually killing this society.
Yes, it was a long time ago, but the consequences of that choice by Moldovan voters are still being felt and savoured by them to this day, and will continue to do so until their extinction as a demographic entity (not smoothly transitioning into a vanishing population) unless this society changes its attitude towards itself and its descendants, i.e., towards its historical future as a people. Just as society then failed to heed the warnings of the then alternative “agrarian” party, so now it can, on the contrary, heed those forces that express the country’s existential choice in favor of the effective sovereignty of the people and the corresponding sovereignty of the Moldovan state as the sole instrument for building and creating its economy, an economy for its people .
The failure of the Moldovan economy was, and continues to be, determined by the failure of Moldovan society. This failure of society manifests itself in the fundamental absence of any public consensus on any issue of public importance. This lack of consensus is determined by the failure to restore the society’s collective consciousness, i.e., its collective identity. In other words, society itself has failed to form, remaining stuck in the state of a historically collapsed population in these lands, never becoming a nation or rebuilding itself as a nation.
Moldova’s current economy is a model for a criminal homeless shelter.
Only an already functioning system can be in crisis or enter one. In 1991-1992, the economy of the Moldavian SSR was abolished, and the economy of the Republic of Moldova was never created because no project existed or was ever created to build a national economic system for the Republic of Moldova. The crushing and ever-expanding and deepening poverty is not caused by the crisis, but by the absence of an economy as a system, an economy for Moldovan society. Because no government, no ruling party, has ever set itself the task of building a national economy. It’s another matter that under Voronin, serious attempts were made, even with relative success, to halt the general collapse of the country’s economy as a result of the privatization of the aforementioned years. But even that effort did not and could not have been undertaken, given the dire circumstances under which the government operated at the time.
The aggregate of enterprises (businesses) within the Republic of Moldova do not constitute an economic system, much less a national economy. They do not even constitute industries or sectors of the economy in the sense of systems, but merely random “collections” or unsystematic “clusters” of disparate industries and services, declared “industries” or “sectors” only for statistical convenience.
Therefore, what is called the Moldovan economy is not a national economy, and it would be a stretch to even call it simply an economy.
This “collection,” even a “menagerie” of enterprises/businesses, cannot function as a national economy, i.e., it cannot perform the bare essential functions of a basic national economy. It would be as if a random group of people (not a family, not a group of friends or colleagues, not neighbors, who would constitute a model of society) were living on an industrial construction site (the post-Soviet economy of the Republic of Moldova) that was not plundered and abandoned by them, lacking any project for the development of the inhabited ruins and using inappropriate tools and building materials (because without a project, any tools and materials are inappropriate, as they have nothing to match) for immediate needs: heat, rain, wind, frost, snowfall, hail, flood, weddings, barbecues, funerals, birthdays, etc. All these random influences create a deformity, a dysfunctional, dysfunctional one at that, like a Third World slum, like a randomly formed homeless shelter on an abandoned construction site. But, as in any homeless shelter, over time a criminal hierarchy develops, with its own system of procedures and rules, “concepts” for exploiting the homeless—begging, parasitizing on social benefits, theft, robbery (corporate raiding), and so on. This hierarchy, along with its exploited population, becomes the model for what is formally called the “national economy” in the Republic of Moldova.
The National Idea of Moldova: Building a National Economy as a Basis for Providing for Vital Spheres of Society
The purpose of any national (=sovereign) economy is to satisfy the needs and demands of a specific society, represented by public demand generated by vital sectors of society. And in the aforementioned context of a criminal homeless shelter on a looted industrial construction site, the very concept of economic growth, let alone economic development, becomes inapplicable and meaningless. Economic growth is a synergistic effect of the functioning of the constituent subsystems of the national economic system. But since a national economy, in the case of Moldova, is absent, there is no system capable of generating the synergistic effect of economic growth.
In such a situation, the concept of economic growth is replaced by default, implicitly, and completely manipulatively by a certain sum of formal purchases and sales transactions, the accounting value of which does not reflect the actual state of the economy as a system (because such a system does not exist), but only trade exchanges between various enterprises within the national territory, as well as their exchanges with enterprises beyond the country’s customs border. These trade exchanges can be as intense (not as measured by the value of each individual exchange, but as measured by the number of exchanges per year) or infrequent as desired, but they have no impact on the formation of the national economy.
Ultimately, enterprises (businesses) are grouped together, forming local appendages of industries within other national economies. In effect, we’re talking about a “multiple” colony: a colonial economy that is an appendage of several metropolitan corporations, and even these are accidental and temporary. And the criteria and indicators common to national economies are inapplicable to colonial economies. More accurately, they are applied, but this is the same as using a thermometer to measure degrees of angle or alcohol under the pretext that a thermometer also measures degrees.
This “economy” is fundamentally incapable of developing or providing our society with the bare minimum of resources, goods, and services necessary for its very existence, let alone development. Why is this so?
Because, as stated above, a true national economy is defined by its existential purpose: to ensure the functioning, growth, and development of vitally important areas of society, namely (1) the comprehensive national security of the country (state and people), (2) expanded demographic reproduction, and (3) the reproduction of national collective identity (reflecting the historically validated, cultural, existential values of the people of Moldova). This means that the national economy must have a specific set of sectors that form a system that generates a synergistic effect , operating within a specific foreign economic and geopolitical environment.
In other words, the governments that followed the declaration of independence, and especially after Voronin’s presidency, were obliged, in the now relatively calm conditions they inherited from him, to develop a concept and corresponding strategy for building a national economy. This, naturally, would have included the creation of new industries that, together with some existing industries, would have formed that very system of industries—the national economy. This would have been the national idea of Moldovan society . As we all know, nothing of the sort happened. And it couldn’t have happened, given the professional and moral quality of all subsequent ruling parties and their governments without exception.
State property as the basis of the country’s sovereignty and as the locomotive of the national economy
Developing such a strategy in principle It is impossible without the adoption of a constitutional law on state property, which would define such a pivotal phenomenon as state property. State property is derived from the sovereignty of the respective state (neither colonies nor protectorates possess state property). And the purpose of this property is precisely to ensure (1) the functioning of sovereignty, (2) the growth and development of vital spheres of society, and (3) the creation of new industries along with the modernization of existing ones.
Figuratively speaking, state property is the locomotive that propels the national economy, with society traveling in its passenger cars. Naturally, passenger cars follow freight cars, which represent private interests expressed in enterprises following the locomotive. Without the locomotive—without effectively defined and, consequently, effectively functioning state property—all the other cars not only stand idle, but also wander off to various dead ends or even derail, rotting in vacant lots and abandoned unfinished buildings.
Based on its existential purposes, state property is divided into commercial and non-commercial. The latter supports the activities of government bodies at all levels, including the army and police, and also supports vital sectors of society that, by their very nature, cannot function commercially.
Commercial state-owned enterprises operate primarily within a specific economic environment, undertaking investment, marketing, and scientific research that private capital, especially in small economies like Moldova, cannot afford. These involve large-scale, long-term investments in high-tech projects, focusing on the most promising enterprises, which represent the foundation for new industries. These new industries should be focused exclusively on developing highly solvent segments of foreign markets, primarily within their geopolitical pole. Such projects require not only large sums of funding, but also significant technological advances and the training of a highly skilled workforce to ensure the proper functioning of the relevant industries. This is something only the state, not private business, can afford.
Such promising enterprises are launched as state-owned facilities and, after they break even and generate a predetermined percentage of profit, are privatized, thereby modernizing the private sector. The proceeds from privatization are then invested in yet another, even more technologically advanced and even more profitable project. This cycle is constantly repeated, giving rise to the formation and development of industries whose synergistic effects reflect the functioning of an already established, mature national economy.
Naturally, such large-scale projects are only beneficial in stable conditions, both in terms of foreign economic, foreign policy, and domestic political conditions. It is precisely this stability that each of the emerging geopolitical poles is called upon to ensure for its constituent sovereign economies. Naturally, as noted below, each pole offers its potential constituents its own unique set of acceptance criteria, which, for small economies, contains both advantages and disadvantages. It is these “offers” that our society must evaluate and, based on the essential criteria outlined below, accept and implement the optimal one.
Geopolitics determines the economic potential of any country.
Of course, the direction of the railway track along which the “train of the national economy” moves is crucial. In other words, not every set of globally competitive industries that potentially constitute Moldova’s national economy is acceptable for our survival as a society, as a people. In other words, not every place in the international division of labor, in the geoeconomic global profit, is acceptable for Moldova’s national economy. Such a place, such a geoeconomic role for the future potential of the Moldovan economy, is determined by satisfying an organic (not mechanical, i.e., one that does not allow for their collapse as a mechanical one allows) system of existential criteria from the perspective of the historical survival of our people.
It should be emphasized once again that economic growth (as a prerequisite for economic development) is fundamentally impossible for a small economy without guaranteed access to sufficiently solvent demand, i.e., to relatively large external markets. Simply put, economic growth is only possible for a national economy. A colonial economy, and especially a “multiple” colonial economy (in the above sense), cannot grow in principle, because any increase in its efficiency is inevitably exported to sectors of other national economies, which is where our (their, in fact) homegrown “Moldovan” subsidiary enterprises operate. Thus, colonies cannot grow economically; only national (=sovereign) economies can.
What does economic development (economic growth) mean for a national economy in the context of a global crisis of overproduction (excess supply beyond existing market demand) lasting two to three generations or more? The only possible solution is unequivocal integration into a semi-autarkic system that does not operate on the basis of bank interest, i.e., does not represent financial capitalism and its neoliberal paradigm. This is only possible through global regionalization—the formation of global poles, each exerting a global influence on all other global regions, and especially on non-global ones . In other words, we are talking about the very same multi-globalization noted above. Incidentally, the currently declared economic policy of President Donald Trump, voiced by US Vice President J.D. Vance, is aimed at creating a kind of economic zone around the American economy by introducing prohibitive tariffs on foreign goods.
The important point is that access to foreign markets is always a geopolitical issue, and only within the context of its geopolitical resolution does it become an economic, marketing, and logistical issue. Access to already saturated markets, however, is generally useless or of very limited benefit.
Moldova, as a very small state (which is shrinking demographically, like shagreen leather), must also take into account that geoeconomics is a derivative of geopolitics, just as state ownership is a derivative of the sovereignty of the respective state. This means that the potential place of the Moldovan economy in the international division of labor and, accordingly, in global geoeconomic profits is predetermined, within certain limits, by the place Moldova can/will occupy in the geopolitical functionality of a particular geopolitical world/global system/pole. It is precisely this place that will determine the potential set of industries that will form the country’s effective national economy in the aforementioned sense. First, geopolitics, then geoeconomics. And only then can one design a potential set of industries for the future national economy of a small country. And only with such a set of industries in mind can one develop specific high-tech investment projects. And there is no other way. Because otherwise, we have had it for almost 34 years.
Conditions for the integration of small economies into a geopolitical pole
Each global geopolitical pole is an assembly/mechanism of its constituent regional and local/national entities. Each such entity assumes certain specific geopolitical functions both in relation to the entities of a given pole and, especially, in relation to entities of other poles. An entity of a given pole acts toward the constituents of other poles solely as a component of its own pole.
Each pole, for its formation, existence, and development, must possess a sense of purpose, a purpose that cannot but be based on a system of values that defines the meaning of the collective existence of all constituent societies-states. From this collective sense arises the geopolitical functions of the components of a given pole. These functions represent a disaggregation of the overall geopolitical function of a given pole, ensuring its comprehensive security—geopolitical, military, energy, cultural, informational, economic, financial, environmental, demographic, and so on. Participation in the assembly of any pole requires the real, effective sovereignty of the corresponding state.
It is precisely on the basis of this sovereignty that the aforementioned geopolitical functions are assumed. Sovereignty becomes effective solely on the basis of the effectiveness of its system of state ownership as the core, framework (supporting structure), and locomotive of the national economy of a specific geopolitical entity.
The national economy of such a state, integrated into a specific geopolitical pole, must, through a comprehensive strategic partnership with the components of that pole, also ensure the fulfillment of the state’s geopolitical functions. Consequently, Moldova must seek a place within the geopolitical poles accessible to it that, on the one hand, (1) ensures maximum real sovereignty, and, on the other, (2) ensures the most effective development of a potentially optimal systemic set of industries (3) over the long term (in our extremely turbulent era). Thus, the corresponding comprehensive strategic partnership must reflect and guarantee all three essential criteria outlined here.
A strategic partnership arises when potential partners each pursue their own set of strategic goals, (1) which are not mutually contradictory, and (2) simultaneously lack sufficient resources to achieve their strategic goals. The partners borrow the missing resources from each other under certain, mutually balanced conditions. Thus, a strategic partnership arises when, without it, neither partner can achieve their strategic goals. Recall that a goal is strategic only if its failure leads to the collapse of the very meaning of existence/purpose of a particular system, a particular entity, and especially a geopolitical entity.
However, in the case of a small state seeking protection of its sovereignty from a geopolitical pole, it cannot offer the pole’s hegemon anything of strategic interest. At best, it can facilitate the performance of geopolitical functions by some other entities within the pole, including interstate or other non-geopolitical functions. Consequently, a potential partnership between a small state and the pole’s hegemon is strategic for the small state, but not for the hegemon. As a result, such a partnership necessarily cannot be mutually balanced and will be biased in favor of the hegemon. This is precisely why a small state is forced to assume obligations (in the form of expenditures of various resources) disproportionate to its capabilities (economic, diplomatic, military, intelligence, scientific, informational) in the performance of a certain (non)geopolitical function, in order to (a) maximally secure its sovereignty and (b) ensure the development of its national economy. Otherwise, the existence of such a state and, accordingly, such a people loses all meaning: in such a case, this people simply dissolves into neighboring, more numerous peoples.
To avoid such an outcome, a small nation must transition to a “state within a state” regime, similar to the Jewish or Muslim diasporas and the Christian communities of the first three centuries of Christianity. Such a regime cannot be maintained permanently, as a state in which such a “state within a state” is formed will continually strengthen its control over all its internal components, down to each individual, and, consequently, to the point of abolishing such internal structures.
In addition to this problem of imbalanced strategic partnerships, a small state will be forced to address the following issue during the development of its national economy. Only an existing national economy can provide the synergistic effect necessary for the functioning of vital sectors of society . This means that during the entire period of national economic development, such an effect is absent. Therefore, a small country must invest resources not only in the creation of new industries and the modernization of existing ones, but also in covering the costs of maintaining vital sectors of society—that is, in covering the missing synergistic effect (economic growth).
Strategic directions of a sovereign state within the pole
Thus, during the period of building a national economy, a small state must find resources for the following strategic areas:
– construction of new industries and modernization of some of the existing promising industries of the future national economy;
– additional obligations within the framework of a strategic partnership to ensure the fulfillment of the assigned/assumed geopolitical function;
– replacement of the synergistic effect of the still dysfunctional national economic system with other resources in order to support and develop vital areas of society.
The following could, purely theoretically, serve as a source of such funds:
– excess profits (in relation to other sectors of its economy) from particularly efficient export sectors (represented by newly created high-tech state-owned enterprises and accompanying private enterprises), whose goods/services have a sustainable competitive advantage in specific segments of foreign markets ;
– borrowed funds from external sources, especially from the system of the geopolitical pole into which the given small state is integrated, and under the conditions of this integration – the protection and development of the sovereignty of the small country;
– internal sources in the form of a relatively more intensive exploitation of one’s resources (mainly labor), which must be motivated in a special way;
– a combination of sources of types 1), 2) and 3) in various proportions.
The strategic partnership is based not only on the provision of protection of sovereignty from external (in relation to the pole) encroachments and on its guarantees within the pole system, but also on the provision of loan funds on appropriate terms to ensure the three strategic directions mentioned above.
Thus, the Republic of Moldova must find a development paradigm (the first phase of this development is the construction of its own national economy), based on the following imposed restrictions:
– a global synergistic effect of two mutually influencing and simultaneous global crises: (1) a global crisis of overproduction (naturally, exclusively in relation to effective demand) lasting two or three generations or more, which means severely limited access to external markets, and (2) a crisis of the global financial system based on the US Federal Reserve dollar;
– unlimited emigration of local labor force, which determines a constant shortage of human resources, which excludes extensive growth (as the simplest type of economic growth);
– a complete lack of natural resources, i.e. the impossibility of the existence of extractive industries, while the overwhelming majority of industrial sectors use extractive industry products of various degrees of processing as input.
Each of these problems and challenges has its own complex solution—complex in the sense that each inevitably contains negative effects, albeit temporary in some cases, but not all of them have positive effects, even in the long term. The global crisis of overproduction is resolved, as demonstrated above, by integrating into the most favorable geopolitical pole, which benefits from some perspective (economic, social, or geopolitical) by providing access to its effective demand. The global financial crisis is resolved in the same way: each new pole will have its own economic model, generating its own financial system.
In other words, these two problems are resolved exclusively within the framework and at the level of a pole, which, together with the countries included within it (and their national economies), forms a single geopolitical, geoeconomic, and financial-economic macroregion. There could be approximately four to six such macroregions across the entire planet, meaning that each region and each country will be forced to join one of these macroregions formed around a single pole. Outside of any similarly sized macroregion, these two problems are fundamentally unsolvable. Without a solution, no national economy can form, function, or develop, leading to the disappearance of the corresponding state (through the loss of the economic basis of its sovereignty) and, inevitably, its people.
International/regional labor migration creates a global labor market and, consequently, global unemployment (albeit highly fragmented). This unemployment leads to and predetermines a permanent and absolute decline in wages in all economies to which labor migrates. In other words, international labor migration predetermines global impoverishment, i.e., a contraction of global effective demand. Naturally, other factors of impoverishment are also at play. Simply put, migration does not resolve the growth of effective demand; on the contrary, it intensifies, with a slight delay, the crisis of overproduction, i.e., it widens waves of bankruptcy, which in turn reflects the strengthening and intensification of monopolization, and on a global scale.
Labor migration from one country to another deprives the former of the opportunity for economic growth. Moreover, such countries enter a state of contraction of economic activity (or rather, their efforts to survive) or their economies (in those countries that have such economies). The exodus of labor cannot be compensated for by highly efficient technologies (robotics, information technology, and digitalization as technologies for new industrial sectors), because these technologies are extremely expensive or constitute commercial or industrial secrets. Consequently, enterprises in labor-sending countries are forced to close or import extremely low-quality labor, rejected by the economies receiving labor from the given country. This inevitably leads to a decline in productivity, not to mention the devastating social effects on the given society. And, as a result, the given country is relegated to the status of a colony or something even worse.
Intensive economic growth presupposes investment in physical and human capital. And human capital with increased value emigrates even more confidently. Thus, within the framework of the ( neo )liberal paradigm and its terminal phase, which has already been entered by financial capitalism (as the supporting framework, engine, and beneficiary of this paradigm), not only economic growth, not only the construction of a national economy, but even the survival of economic activity in the Republic of Moldova (in the sense of the existence of even the slightest profitable and at the same time sustainable activities) is impossible in principle. A more or less rapid/slow contraction of both the economy and demography (which are mutually conditioned) is currently the main path of the Moldovan “economy” and Moldovan “society.”
The vicious cycle of emigration and the development of national human capital can be broken by non-economic methods: state cultural and educational policies aimed at fostering loyalty based on ethnocultural identity toward one’s country of birth, one’s historical people, and supra-existential values. After all, the strongest form of loyalty is based on religious identity (recall the phenomenon of the “state within a state,” which is based exclusively on religion), or more precisely, on the historical geocultural form of a specific religion, which is an ethnic group. And any form of collective identity is fundamentally at odds with the liberal paradigm and financial capitalism.
Japan’s experience is already a textbook example of how to address the problem of economic development in the absence of natural resources. In this case, the emphasis is on high-tech production, based on a highly educated and patriotic workforce that is averse to emigration, although this does not preclude foreign tourism. Patriotism is rooted in a sense of personal responsibility for the collective continuation of one’s own, historically established, civilizationally unique culture.
Thus, from all the material presented it follows that all the above problems are solved, ultimately and in their essence, exclusively through the creation of a highly qualified and patriotic workforce, possessing a strong collective identity of a religious nature.
Historical alternatives to the neoliberal paradigm
None of the three problems/challenges outlined here have a solution within the ( neo )liberal economic paradigm, or, as mathematicians say, the set of ( neo )liberal solutions is empty. In fact, practically, and even theoretically, under the conditions of global financial capitalism, neither Moldova and its people, nor any other country or people , have a future. In principle, there is no future, as has been proven by many researchers. Because neoliberalism envisions a future only in the form of transhumanism (= technologized Trotskyism), which means the abolition of humanity and all its historical forms of existence, from the individual to any community (family, relatives, friends, neighbors, colleagues, fellow countrymen, cultures, languages, peoples, states, civilizations). Essentially, the abolition of all human beings, except for the financial oligarchy, and their replacement with non-humans such as clones, cyborgs, genetically modified humanoids, biorobots, and the like.
The illiberal path of Moldovan society and, accordingly, the Moldovan economy, could, purely theoretically , be represented either by one of the already experienced socialisms (Trotskyist-Leninist with its War Communism as a precursor to transhumanism, or with its NEP as modern Chinese “socialism”, or Stalinist, which created in record time one of the most powerful and effective economies in the world, or Yugoslavian, but certainly not Maoist) or state-monopoly capitalism (in the form of French post-war dirigisme, Swedish or Finnish “socialism”, Japanese “liberalism” or German or Italian reformism of the 1945-1970s), which would encompass key industries and enterprises, while the rest would be a market economy. In addition to these already tested paradigms of non-liberal functioning and development of national economies, there are also other projects that have not yet been implemented (for example, the physical economy of the American L. LaRouche, the approach of M. Khazin or V. Katasonov in Russia , and others ).
Naturally, depending on the geopolitical pole into which Moldova decides to integrate for the above-mentioned purposes and according to the specified criteria (otherwise it will simply be annexed to some pole as a geopolitical object and/or colony), and on specific geo-economic conditions, the practical application of any of the theoretically possible paths for our survival as a people with its own sovereign state (which in itself is an extreme rarity on a global and historical scale) will introduce numerous adjustments to reflect all the necessary and sufficient conditions and constraints for the construction and development of the Moldovan national economy.
Viorel CHUBOTARU,
strategic management consultant
