/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

exactly how and why do the US and its European and Japanese cronies export laissez faire floating exchange rates*

It's a fictional economy and all production risk is put elsewhere. Our economy is based on debt.

>>663236
yeah, i was thinking as much tbh
im not sure about the debt part though

The hegemony of the dollar by itself isn't keeping capitalism alive, anymore than gold was. Dollars and dollar assets are just the de facto international money. It could change to something else, though if the dollar violently collapsed it would be a huge crisis. But it would only do that if everybody rapidly fled the dollar or the USA itself did something to kill it. Nobody involved wants either of these scenarios, so to the extent the dollar may decline it will likely be a controlled decline into a new alternative global system.

The African Union

>>663253
The dollar hegemony might not be keeping capitalism alive, but it is keeping the US empire alive and that is what has been the enforcer of capital's interests around the world. Like when Gaddafi tried to create and bankroll a new IMF and dollar free independent central bank and financial institutions for African continent and we all knew what happened to Gaddafi and Libya, when they crossed that line.

I don't have the understanding to predict what kind of unravelling would result from US global retreat and how the US and dollar dependent institutions would recoil from the shock and how it would change global capitalism, that is if it were to survive it. It's kinda funny that the dollar hegemony and Us military hegemony both rely on each other. I wonder winch one will fail first or will they both kinda go together if US empire falls gently into that good night.

>>663390
Dunno why more people don’t take away from this stuff that the left should try to start its own financial mechanisms. It is obviously a point of conflict.

>>664258
>the left should try to start its own financial mechanisms
yeah that sounds like a piece of cake

>>664258
>The left should try to start its own financial mechanisms
Lmao
Next you’ll say we “just” need to make our own countries and build nukes
Yeah it’s all that simple

>>664346
the left should start its own communism

dude just make your own banks and businesses its easy,

>>664258
Shanghai cooperation ogr countries are already doing this. What we rally need is an alterative to reach critical mass of users and enough military muscle to keep burgers second guessing on invasion to stop it. luckily burgers sanction everybody out of their system, because they can't think of anything else to do anymore, so we might be close to that tipping point. After that the Russo-Sino-Aryan troika will take over the global finance with their institutions that they are building, inshallah.

>>663390
>Gaddafi
made the mistake of not having nuclear weapons

>>664337
>>664346
So what if it’s hard, everything is difficult. I’m saying nobody even talks about it. In many ways it seems easier than a lot of other organizing efforts because it can actually be highly consumer based. In fact, analogues already exist. For decades non-profits have raised funds through collecting and selling gift cards. Their pitch is that you just spend money like you normally would, but if you buy the gift card through them then they can discount it with the retailer by getting them wholesale. So they take the difference and use it for their non-profit. To the consumer, it looks like they’re not doing anything different.

You could do the same shit with a payment processor that basically is a left wing organization. It’d be like if PayPal was run by a Soviet or something. If you buy shit via SovietPal, then SovietPal uses the leverage of all their users to extract a fee from businesses, which it then uses to fund whatever. Personally I think it should be used to buy real estate that gets turned into community land trusts or cooperative housing, slowly ending asset inflation in housing and giving increased leverage to the general working class through less housing precarity.

>>664641
Tbh even liberals wouldn’t be entirely against this, because you can just pitch it as a social project to increase housing affordability. So if you buy shit with the leftist payment processor instead of Visa or Apple Pay or whatever, you know that you’re contributing to a fund for housing affordability. And there isn’t any difference to you at the register, as long as it’s an accepted form of payment then you can either line Apple’s pockets or you can help create affordable housing. It’s a low risk low cost proposition.

>>664641
>>664645
This will not work, as long as you operate within the logic of capitalism, systemic pressures will force you to replicate what every other capitalist does. The only exception to this is if you have control over a powerful state.

It's not a bad idea to think along the lines of having the basis of a new society form within the old society, the basic impulse is not bad. However you have to think more along the lines of how the bourgeoisie won against the feudal lords.

Capitalism won against feudalism, because capitalism was better at implementing machine production. You have to figure out what part of the conditions of today would give you a similar advantage over capitalists. You can start with looking at all the things that capitalism is really bad at. One more thing, you have to do all your internal accounting in labour time and material resources. The bourgeoisie did start operating within the feudal system but internally capitalists companies did not operate like feudal lords, and likewise you cannot operate the new thing you are building like the bourgeoisie runs a company.

>>664738
It can work as long as ownership and control are blurred so that there isn’t a mechanism to exploit. The real difference between feudalism and capitalism is how property is organized. Property relationships give rise to immanent social development that nobody plans in advance. Capitalism defeated feudalism by accruing property to its form of property relationships, and then outlawing feudal relations when they were weakened.

>>664804
You can't defeat capitalism by changing only the property relations, as long as money circulation remains, it will regenerate all the other relations of capitalism. You can use money for interactions with the capitalist world but it can not be the basis for your internal logic. I think that internally you should be counting labor hours and material.

>>664845
Money circulation has existed for millennia. It isn’t money that created capitalism, written accounts of the wealth of Romans like Pompey or Caesar were measured in coins, but the expansion of monetary wealth in Rome never coincided with an expansion in capitalist property relations. We’d have no explanation for why money circulation didn’t expand and outcompete older social forms sooner, since it has existed for thousands of years. It’s the property relations of capitalism that were relatively new and expanded rapidly, though they were in relation to the inability of feudal relations to respond to social dilemmas at a certain point. It wasn’t just that capitalism outcompeted feudalism, it was that feudalism was floundering and left a vacuum that capitalist relations could fill and expand upon. The weaknesses of capitalism are where the following system can take root and grow.

>>664886
But just as an aside, it think you SHOULD be doing internal planning, but I don’t think it is feasible to do it all at once because you have to be able to interface with the monetary economy. Basically, you can allocate property you’ve already accrued to the communal ownership of the workers on an in kind basis, but you cant do that for property or what are presently commodities that you don’t own. So that’s why housing is a prime target in my mind, because you can own housing and allocate it without interfacing much with the capitalist sector. People within the communal system can get housing for cheap, while workers outside cant. That can lower the monetary living costs of workers within the system while not lowering their standard of living, thus starting to divest them of the need to engage in capitalist relations in general.

>>664891
And by cheap I mean theoretically “free”, but there are property taxes and maintenance that may require money, so an amount of money still has to be generated to meet those needs to the degree they can’t be fulfilled within the system right now. This is true on a state level too, which is why socialist states have had their multi-tiered monetary systems. But I’m saying you can start this from within a capitalist state and destabilize its monetary system. It would have to respond with attempts to make your form of organization illegal, but that’s an expression of the necessary social conflict. If you get people in the system who rely on cheap housing that the government is now trying to make illegal, then you’re going to have a base of support tight over the issue because you’ve put the state in a position of trying to take away people’s housing (and what for? What’s their reasoning beyond “that’s unfair you can’t have cheap non-commodified housing”?)