Discussion of the article by A. Salitsky and V. Tatsii on the pages of the magazine "Vostok" unfolded at a time when the relapse of the financial and economic crisis caused a sharp mass reaction in the world. Hotheads even started talking about the complete failure of the neoliberal principles of economic globalization embodied in the rules of the Washington consensus. 38 Apparently, this prompted the editorial Board of the journal to organize a discussion around the mentioned article - I must say right away, it was poorly proven and biased to the point of passion, since the authors considered it necessary for some reason to" deliberately sharply " place accents (p. 72) and this, of course, backfired on them. The article focuses on assessing the global prospects of those economic strategies that, according to the authors, are organized around the "mainstream", on the one hand, and the Chinese model of industrialization, on the other. By " mainstream "they mean" mainly neoliberalism, which has become the dominant trend in American politics since the time of M. Friedman " (p.72). However, at first it is not clear why such a contrast is needed, if, as they themselves believe, there is no antagonism between the "mainstream" and the Chinese model. It's just that the authors are confident: "The era of US economic dominance is over, "and in the" post-American world "the space of the "mainstream" will significantly narrow " (pp. 72-73). Becoming a" workshop of peace " (an exaggeration beyond measure. - Yu. A. China" implicitly adopted an investment model of development that is fundamentally different from the 'mainstream' "(p. 73). In other words, it offers the world a strategy of targeted investments in industrialization instead of free search by investors for favorable conditions for applying capital. Accordingly, the key points of the revision of the" mainstream " will be questions about the role of the state in the economy, the unity of the world economy, ideas about pr ... Read more