>>464744>Yeah that's not really doing an industrialization.It's not. Trumptards will cite that sort of thing, none the less.
>You can do a debt jubilee for the working class no problem.The entire economy is founded on individual debt, and, as I said earlier, that debt is already approaching insolvency. If you start writing that stuff off, it will signal that capital has expanded to its absolute limit and capital will stop flowing, especially now given that so little capital is in the form of liquid assets. The short burst of spending that a debt jubilee would generate would be quickly devoured by hikes in commodity prices. That is, I suppose, unless it were done in the overproduction phase of the industrial cycle, but we are a way off from that now. That might be something to look for during the next boom.
>It will only unravel the banking system if you clear out debt that capitalists made to buy capital or play with the stock-market.How would that be avoided? The banking system holds nearly all personal debt.
>Workers usually only buy commodities, if you cancel their debt that's like writing off commodities that were produced but not sold, that's not a big deal.Yeah, so maybe during the overproduction phase when there is an abundance of unsold commodities.
>i don't want to sound like a capitalist apologist but capitalism would probably work better without rent seeking capital.It probably would at that, at least for a little while. Of course, public ownership of real estate would eliminate the biggest, nastiest, tightest set of bonds that the bourgeoisie has on the working class–the threat of poverty. Guaranteed home ownership would be a recipe for outright rebellion, as the workers really would have nothing to lose but their chains.
>I don't even understand why that exists, couldn't all insurance just be done by a single public insurance pot ?You are missing the forest through the trees. American workers, like workers everywhere else are productive, but what they produce the most of is their own debt (arguably the money commodity). The more they work, the deeper they go into it. American workers are singularly productive in that they get bilked out of the value of their own future production–in exchange for absolutely nothing–more and in more ways than workers anywhere else do. Land rent, insurance, interest, federal taxes, private health care–all of it ultimately resolves into the surplus-value of labor-power that has not yet been realized. That is why all that seemingly dumb shit exists in the United States and elsewhere in the supposed "imperial core." The future labor-power thus stolen then goes from the financial industry and governments straight into new capital. It's capitalism stealing from the future to keep itself functioning in the present, and right now capitalism would not exist without the theft.
>I know what government bonds are, but not what it means with the "lower-level" qualifier.I meant "lower-level governments" like cities, counties, and states. They can't print their own dollars and so actually have to budget what they spend.
>You don't strictly need fictional capital to build heavy industry.The constant capital required to build heavy industry where none currently exists today would be enormous, an unobtainable sum for anyone but the financial industry, which has it in liquid form. The bourgeoisie that is in the business of producing actual commodities has its wealth largely in the form of already existing constant capital.
>Marx even said that industrial capital might displace money-capital.It might briefly, but I don't imagine that will happen until the wheels really start to come off.
>they want to export capital all over the world and make imperial super-profits.Nobody is exporting capitalism. It's already native everywhere, and the "superprofits" are, likewise, mostly homegrown.