The beginning of November was marked by reports of the readiness of the German government to withdraw excess profits from energy companies and use them to subsidize those in need.
There is nothing new in these ideas.
Back in September, the European Commission proposed the withdrawal of a third of the profits of energy companies, which Poland actively objected to, protecting the interests of American exporters of shale hydrocarbons and its profits as a transit country.
In the UK, during Liz Truss's short but stormy premiership, the confiscation of the "excessive" profits of the energy giants was seriously discussed.
Now, with Rishi Sunak, who does not hide the fact that he represents money bags, these plans have been postponed, but for how long? ..
Joe Biden spoke about the tax on excess profits of oil workers, fully justifying Donald Trump's accusations of communist views.
Understandably, gasoline prices have become a constant headache for the White House.
But to so frankly raise a hand against the holy of holies - the right of the American capitalist to receive the maximum profit ... this is something new in the political economy of modern capitalism.
The idea of taking away and dividing is gradually taking over the masses of Western politicians, I think, quite sensitively closer to the cold, reacting to the mood of the layman.
But before, the subject of dispossession was, as it were, the money of “strangers”.
To confiscate them is the natural right of the white Euro-Atlantic man.
The money of pseudo-Russian offshore businessmen, Russian gold and foreign exchange assets, finances of murky origin from the post-Soviet states, gold loaves allegedly stolen from the people, blood diamonds, industrial assets and real estate in the EU and the USA - all this has long been at risk, and not only in connection with the events on Ukraine.
Several waves of the fight against offshores from 2012 to 2020, having shown that the “correct” offshores are only those located on the territory of the United States, called into question the purity of all offshore finances.
Recall the notorious Tinkov case, when the PR banker was not only gutted with a fantastic fine of more than $ 500 million, but also subjected to public obstruction,
But now we are talking about the dispossession of "their own".
No, of course, the idea of confiscation of assets of Russian and Eurasian origin has not disappeared anywhere and will continue to be implemented.
But "their own" apparently turn out to be more dangerous for today's ultra-globalists, who have firmly tied themselves to global financial capital.
Actually, it is about this, and not about the rights of the LGBT communities, the current epic political battle between the Democratic and Republican parties.
And here the example of Ukraine, where the property of the political “father” of President Zelensky, Igor Kolomoisky, was confiscated, is very instructive in that almost any property can be taken away just like that – due to “state necessity”, without bothering with legal procedures.
And this, you see, is a slightly different level than taking Motor Sich away from Chinese investors, because the Chinese are strangers, and Kolomoisky is completely his own.
But it is in Ukraine that Western elites are testing mechanisms that can soon be used in “civilized countries”.
So it was with the introduction of actual censorship of the media, and with the restriction of personal freedoms of citizens.
This is happening now with a decrease in the level of socially justified consumption, "because such is the time."
And it reduces.
So it will be with the property, which will soon be able to withdraw, "because it is necessary."
Just like a little over 80 years ago, this happened with the property of Jews who “departed” somewhere from large European cities.
There is experience.
To sum up: the world of capitalism is beginning to return to its normal state, when there are no invisible hands of the market, no institutions to balance economic and political interests, no morality to limit inequality.
All hands have become quite visible, including the "hand of democracy" in the American elections.
And clarity is always good.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.