[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Captcha
Tor Only
Flag
File
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)
Matrix   IRC Chat   Mumble   Telegram   Discord
ReturnCatalogBottom

File: 1682873408020.jpg ( 29.35 KB , 480x360 , gatekeeper.jpg )

 No.468995

I think that sanctions might end market economics.

There is a weak argument and a strong argument for this.

The weak version is that by putting sanctions on countries you prevent the people in these countries from participating in the free-market(TM). This argument only works if you uphold markets as an ideological end in it self.

The strong version of this argument is that the way sanctions are used now could be transformed into something else later. Currently sanctions are a kind of economic weapon, nominally used for political ends , but there are of course people getting rich off the sanctions battles. So it's reasonable to assume that this could sneak into regular business praxis. If there is a way to get rich, there's always ruthless people willing to walk it.

It's a very handy tool to knock out competition either abroad or at home, it can be used to disrupt supply chains of competitors or locking out competitors out entirely. The cost for it is paying the media to manufacture consent and bribing the power-brokers in decision-making positions.

I think that it might also be possible to scale it down and use it against smaller entities than nation states, perhaps big corporate players might also be viable targets. I'm not sure how much this can be scaled down.

I'm imagining that once this gains momentum the power-brokers with the sanctions levers and the media manufacturing consent machine will be able to run some kind of protection racket and become able to accumulate large amounts of wealth without actually engaging in market exchange. And eventually entrench them self's as formal gate keepers for all economic activity. I don't know how to call this perhaps "degenerated post capitalism".
>>

 No.468999

I don't think that would happen - if I'm reading you correctly, it seems like a circumstance which would require an amount of sanctioning activity which would be detrimental to undercutting labor. It would reduce potential market growth, likely increase overall costs, and probably inhibit rentseeking in some way too just because of its effect on everything else… and in order to maintain it, you'd need to keep offering total unchecked economic power to the capitalist class… and even if this level of sanction-mongering itself proved profitable to most capitalists (which I doubt, manufacturing sectors probably would not like it very much, and any exports in agriculture would probably also suffer), it seems like the end state would just be a domestic market controlled by business cartels rather than a post-market society.
>>

 No.469000

>>468999
>it seems like the end state would just be a domestic market controlled by business cartels rather than a post-market society
Which direction are we actually headed though: ghey socialist ant hive utopia or globohomo state-monopoly hell?
>>

 No.469021

>>468999
> it seems like a circumstance which would require an amount of sanctioning activity which would be detrimental to undercutting labor
I don't understand, can you explain how sanctioning activity would be detrimental to undercutting labor ?

>It would reduce potential market growth
>likely increase overall costs
>inhibit rentseeking
>manufacturing sectors probably would not like it
>exports in agriculture would probably also suffer
All of that is already happening, even the biggest rent-seeking hedge funds like Black Rock lost 30%.

There is some resistance against the neocons from capitalists who drew the short stick but so far they haven't done much. Which I have to admit is very uncharacteristic for capitalists. Historic capitalists would have never accepted this they would have continued trading, ignoring the sanctions. Anybody who dared to punish them for that would be dodging relentless smear campaigns, really drastic harassment, up-to persistent assassination attempts. Present day capitalists seem neutered somehow.
>>

 No.469064

The sanction tool is used to deliberately implode capitalism and select the damage zones. Can't trade with the Empire, you will suffer - but the Empire also knows this strategy hurts its working class, and this is done across every country. (Yes, China is part of the Empire. Everyone is.)
>>

 No.469073

>>469064
>China is part of the Empire Everyone is.
That's what the neo-cons want but it ain't so, China largely ignores US sanctions.
>>

 No.469080

>>469073
China doesn't care about US sanctions because when they happen, they hurt the US more. US will never actually sanction China at this point. They're way too heavily invested and banked everything on propping up China as a partner.
>>

 No.469081

>>469080
China could sanction the US though if they really want to implode the country and establish global clout. That won't happen though. The remnants of the US are too useful for the Empire to hold, and they really have nothing to gain by doing that.
You'd have to believe that people just fight for no real reason except essentialism. There is no struggle that isn't resolved better by realigning the geopolitical map between the two regions.
China fucking with US means fucking with everyone the US is aligned with, which is a lot of people. Bases everywhere do not come without alliances.
>>

 No.469082

>>469080
I'll tell you, this has already been roadmapped. Ruling logic in US geopolitics is to let China "peacefully rise" rather than violently rise, then everything important is shipped to Europe or China. Former US becomes a resource extraction plantation and slave colony with specialization in cybernetics and MKULTRA shit.
>>

 No.469083

>>469080
Everything about the US' specialization, shifts in education, establishment of a slave society, points to this being the strategy. You wouldn't be able to pull off the big cybernetics projects without a formal slave society being normal and accepted, and they already practice considerable mind control tactics to get Americans to accept their fate. There is a lot of compliance and US is far ahead of anyone else on having their people mind controlled.
>>

 No.469084

>>469080
>China doesn't care about US sanctions because when they happen, they hurt the US more.
true
>US will never actually sanction China at this point.
The US has already put high-tech sanction on China, you meant the level of sanction they put on Russia. If they are rational they won't do that, but there's no guaranty that they're rational.

>>469081
>China could sanction the US though if they really want to implode the country and establish global clout. That won't happen though.
I think China won't try to smash the US because they don't really care about anything outside of China beyond keeping the international environment stable. In Chinese eyes the US's attempts at dominating the world have lead to too much instability. They won't copy US methods because they think the results are bad.

>>469083
>Ruling logic in US geopolitics is to let China "peacefully rise" rather than violently rise.
A not insignificant part of the US ruling class wants to provoke a war with China, at the moment they're trying to make Taiwan into a sacrificial proxy for that war. I think that they will probably fail, and China will rise peacefully, but it's by no means a certainty.

>>469083
>Everything about the US' specialization, shifts in education, establishment of a slave society, points to this being the strategy. You wouldn't be able to pull off the big cybernetics projects without a formal slave society being normal and accepted.
You mean the gig-economy ?, the social relations in that are closer to feudal lord and serf than slave-society master and slave. You are probably correct about ruling class intentions, but neither feudal nor slave societies can persist in a world that already has capitalist and lower-stage-socialist societies.

You are also neglecting the possibility that it's possible to build a cybernetic socialism, that wouldn't require subjugating people to formal slavery, quite the contrary it would probably result in a society with the least amount of subjugation.
>>

 No.469085

>>469021
>I don't understand, can you explain how sanctioning activity would be detrimental to undercutting labor ?

If they're just sanctioning the shit out of everyone, how can they "outsource" production? They'd have fewer options to undercut labor. Why would capitalists see that as preferable to having lots of options to undercut labor?

>All of that is already happening, even the biggest rent-seeking hedge funds like Black Rock lost 30%.

Ok, but why would capitalists want to restrict their own capital accumulation even more on purpose?
Rentseeking is still profitable btw, it's a long term activity which also raises prices by its nature. When capitalists can profit off of those inflated prices, they like it - but this scenario with this amount of sanctioning would have a negative effect on their ability to do that, so it doesn't make sense that the entire capitalist class would pursue such an economic route.
>>

 No.469087

>>469085
>Ok, but why would capitalists want to restrict their own capital accumulation even more on purpose?
It looks like the big bourgeoisie in the west is trying to shrink the western economy in order to raise unemployment and decrease wages. You are right that going against capital accumulation is trying to swim against systemic currents, it's very stupid but that doesn't mean they won't try it, after-all ruling class degeneration is a thing.
>>

 No.469088

>>469084
The rulers do not want any form of socialism that would be a meaningful implementation. They make it clear they do not want the people to have anything, and have found a critical mass of people who will fight to the bitter end to ensure those selected to die will die. That is the governing principle they have chosen to regulate society and economic activity. They announce this loud and clear. That's the source of your problem - that a concerted interest absolutely refuses to allow those cast out to possess a single thing. We could very easily give to those who have not the means to live and participate in society, but it was decided that the alien underclass was to be destroyed. There is no going back - it has gone on for too long, and is far from complete. If you want to change that, it is a political struggle - and it would not be some revolution where people LARP as Jacobins or Soviets and recapitulate past memories, which weren't even what their narratives suggest they were. The Jacobin tyranny did not conform to this clean narrative of Whig History canned revolution, and not even the narratives that were at the forefront of the revolution suggested that line of historical progress. What would be required is something very different, that has never happened in human history and managed to win. It would entail a way of thinking that is alien to all hitherto known politics, or at least politics as it has been conducted in this vast imperial enterprise that has a very long history.
>>

 No.469089

>>469088
>The rulers do not want any form of socialism that would be a meaningful implementation.
When slave-societies like the Roman empire were converted into feudal societies, the slave-masters did not want it, but the feudal lords did not leave them a choice. When the feudal societies were converted into capitalist societies the feudal lords did not want it, but the bourgeoisie did not leave them a choice. When socialism gets implemented it'll be like that as well. If humanity would ask the entrenched rulers for permission to advance it's social and economic organization we would never have gone beyond clan societies.

>people who will fight to the bitter end to ensure those selected to die will die.
I guess it's true that such a tendency always exists in class societies but it's a loosing strategy, because it's too inefficient to murder or degrade loads of people. And it's not like it's possible to change the composition of the population via mass-murder or selective breading-rights. You could say that humanity is genetically so redundant that it's utterly futile to attempt artificial negative selection.

>What would be required is something very different, that has never happened in human history and managed to win. It would entail a way of thinking that is alien to all hitherto known politics
That sounds interesting, but change doesn't begin with a new idea, it begins with new material conditions that give rise to new ideas.
>>

 No.469090

>>469089
<Tfw a dim-witted teenager tries to have a serious, deep, and logical conversation with a schizophrenic
>change doesn't begin with a new idea, it begins with new material conditions that give rise to new ideas
So change begins with…. a change
The education system in burgerland is a joke
>>

 No.469091

>>469090
This went over your head, the point was about grounding the origin of ideas in the material world. If you tell people to search for new ideas, you also have to direct them towards examination of material reality, other-wise too many people will try introspection. Nothing new can be found from looking inwards, and that has been the case for millennia.
>>

 No.469093

>>469091
Fair enough. I couldn't actually bring myself to read the rant you were replying to

Unique IPs: 12
[Return][Catalog][Top][Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ overboard / sfw / alt / cytube] [ leftypol / b / WRK / hobby / tech / edu / ga / ent / music / 777 / posad / i / a / R9K / dead ] [ meta ]
ReturnCatalogTopBottomHome