Economic patriotism

In recent history, when propaganda in every possible way develops ideological patriotism, characterized by such statements as “For the Tsar, Fatherland, for Faith”, “For the Motherland, for Stalin” in Russia or “For Democracy” in the USA, the concept of economic patriotism remains in the background.

However, it is worth noting that in the Middle Ages, Russian nobles in the war risked their lives not so much “For the Tsar, Fatherland, for Faith”, but for their property, for the estate — an estate (a village or a group of villages with fields) allocated by the tsar for life together with serfs. From which they "fed" themselves, fed their family.

And they perfectly understood that in case of defeat in a war, for example with Poland, the victorious Polish king would rob them of their estate and give them to one of their Polish nobles.

And they were not afraid to die heroically in battle, because they realized that in case of victory the estate would remain the hero’s family: his wife and children, who would be able to exist comfortably, controlling him.

And they went to the war on the first call quite independently, since a nobleman who did not come to the war almost certainly lost his estates, which were transferred to more heroic nobles.

And the nobleman did not go to war alone, but with a group of relatively trained and armed fighters, proportional to the population of their villages.

And they went with enthusiasm, because when conquering new territories, in addition to trophies, they could count on new names. For example, a huge part of the territories captured by Count Potemkin in the Wild Field, Tavria and Crimea for the Russian Empire since the time of Catherine II, became his personal names.

This system in Russia began to collapse with the increase of the tsar’s army directly from a group of archers to a regular army, where the nobles began to come on their own just to officer posts, and was finally destroyed by the serf reform, which “liberated” the peasants from the nobles and nobles from the existing labor force. Economic patriotism has economically died. Tsarist Russia survived on bare patriotism for just over 50 years.

In the USA, economic patriotism was created mainly on a capitalist basis. Vanderbildts have always defended not so much “democratic values” as the railways they owned. Rockefellers - their oil wells and oil refineries, Dupons - their chemical plants. Owners of Boeing and McDonnell Douglas - their aircraft factories, owners of General Dynamic, Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin - their military plants.

For example, such a part of the country's security as military and political intelligence has always been inextricably linked with the economic and technical intelligence of major US corporations.

“It is officially believed that until 1941 the United States did not have a single intelligence service. Here are the words of US Secretary of State Dean Acheson: "Before the Second World War, the number of employees involved in collecting information in the State Department did not exceed ten." Nevertheless, it must be admitted that the United States possessed practically all the necessary information. Embassies, military and naval attachés, but mainly powerful financial and industrial tycoons, who had a network of their own intelligence services around the globe, gathered information that was needed not only by their owners, but also by the American government.”
https://agesmystery.ru/rubriki/lica-razvedki/uilyam-dzhozef-donovan-1883-1959/

The current situation in the field of economic patriotism in the United States and Russia is now completely not in Russia's favor, which determines the place of Russia in its confrontation with the United States. Currently, the entire US foreign policy apparatus, including the US Army and Navy, serves the US economy, and therefore the main shareholders of American enterprises. The most distinguished officials in helping one or another American corporation, the foreign policy bloc, when retiring, may well rely on a highly paid position in the corporation and a solid stock option. This is rarely written in the American press, but in the establishment the terms “Senator from Boeing” or “Congressman from Exxon” are not surprising.

In Russia, state officials, including the “power bloc”, are almost officially forbidden to have property connecting them with the country. Even if the family of such an official will own enterprises, land, telecommunications companies, hotels, restaurants or airlines, it is likely that such a business will be seized when the official retires on one pretext or another. Therefore, at the current time, the personal economic activity of government officials is not aimed at developing the country and its infrastructure, but at quick income using the “earn and hide” method, which is clearly contrary to the interests of the Russian people and Russia as a state.

At one time, Nobel laureates Olson and McGuire proved that the state of the "settled gangster" has a significant advantage over the state of "nomadic bandits" or "roving bandits", whose purpose is to maximize the benefits in the short term. A reasonable “settled gangster” who decides to gain a foothold in a certain territory, single-handedly control it and receive income from the population in the form of regular taxes, in the long run establishes such taxation that stimulates the development of economic activity, and is directly interested in the economic development of the territory.
https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Saddleband_Bandit_Theory

The Russian state will become competitive when the “sedentaryness” of its officials will receive political priority. When his officials will be explicitly or indirectly encouraged to develop the Russian economy, including that belonging to their families. When there will be a guarantee of compliance with the property rights of families of officials in the long term. This can be formalized both as direct ownership and as investment funds owned by officials personally or by groups of employees of a given department.

It is in this case that officials, including the “power bloc”, will not massively change their country. They will not contribute to the surrender of millions of soldiers at the beginning of the war. They will not give up territory, both land and shelf, through diplomatic methods. They will not allow the disintegration of a single economic space into many supposedly "independent", but in fact economically incapable states.

And they will defend their country effectively, because they will fight not only for the abstract "Homeland", but for their own property. The one that "can be touched, but cannot be carried away."

They will "fight for their own", automatically protecting the interests of both the Russian people and the Russian state.

08.07.2019