/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>479783
maybe it's because you're a drooling retard reading euro $$$$$$socialist$$$$$ and trot publications https://michael-hudson.com/

>Not a single mention of deficit spending, fiat money printing
Probably because your evidence-free spooks originate in neoliberal propaganda directed towards privatizing public services so a capitalist can make money off of them. That's probably why leftists aren't very friendly to these particular spooks.

>>479783
>Central Banks
tend to be a government institution and whether or not it's good or bad depends on the politics of who's running the government. The US is weird in that regard because it seems to be a private bank, that has it's leadership appointed by the state. Not sure how that works out exactly.

>the finance industry
Some Marxists think that the entire realm of finance is fictional and should be regarded as something akin to capitalist theology. The simplified rational is that if all the people who are investing into the stock-market stopped believing in it would be gone.

Some Marxist point out that when neo-liberalism put the financial sector "in charge of capitalism" , it stopped investing into industrial growth and the system began to slowly destroy it self. There also is the too big to fail bailout scheme that feels an awful lot like blackmail.

There are some questions about the limitations of the power of the financial sector. Wall-street has like a thousand times as much money as Russia. But Russia has a big industrial sector and as a result they have loads of ammunition for things like artillery, while the west doesn't, despite the staggering financial power of the west.

>deficit spending
That's political again, and it depends on what the spending is for.
If the government spends on:
- public infrastructure that will have a net positive result because it reduces friction in the economy.
- social services, that preserves the "human capital", and as a result you have a better functioning society and economy too.
- irrational imperial adventures, you get inflation and a bad economic recession.
- propping up entrenched monopolies, you get low economic dynamism.

>fiat money printing or fractional reserve banking.
There are a lot of Marxists that criticized this, they just call it privatized currency controle.
The counter tendency to that might be central bank digital currencies, which probably aren't without downsides.

Like the other anon already suggested, you'll probably find Micheal Hudson's work interesting.

>>479808
Good poast

Mostly because once central banks exist, what function they play is not about capital or a productive economy at all, but management of assets at the highest level. They are the stronghold of the proprietors, and indicate the victory of property over society. There is no more "revolution" if that happens. If that happens, the people have lost.
Humanity lost as a result of the war of 1914, and everything since has been the continuation of the end of the world. The future refused to change.

It is worth noting that Marxists believed the "second revolution" - anything you would call "socialism" - was far in the future, perhaps more than a century removed from the time they wrote or longer. Anything that would have allowed socialism as a meaningful proposition didn't exist as a worked-out plan until the last third of the 20th century. By then, socialism made clear that it did not include most of humanity, who were never wanted nor needed, and so we got the world we got. There was never going to be anything else. They were never going to let you in their society.

The early socialists mostly were reformers who wanted a nicer capitalism, and at most suggested that "hey, maybe we should have less wars and allow the world to unite peacefully instead of do the things we know you're all planning to do." Had it been allowed to exist on its own - had the middle class and proprietors seen correctly that they were being lined up to be wiped out, and their enemy was always above, not below - history turns out very different, starting around the middle of the 19th century, in ways that make 1900 nearly unrecognizable. Among the changes is that the British Empire is wiped out on all fronts, ending with an invasion of the island by the end of the century and a very violent extermination of the eugenists and their fellow travelers in all countries of the world. This is unlikely to ever happen for a variety of reasons, but that would be a bare minimum to avert the course we're on, with unknown results. Very likely the world would turn into a dystopian hell, and this would be better than the world we're going to become. There would have been an end to that world, when the next thing arises.

As it is, there is nothing that can possibly change this world that is realistically possible. It went on for too long, and it is now global. There isn't even an idea that suggests anything should be different, let alone could be different. That's how far gone we are.

In this "world line", you might have salvaged something until 1989, but it was increasingly little, and humanity didn't just lack any good in them, but were nowhere near as smart as they believed themselves to be. All of those brains chopped told the rulers that humans really were more animal, including themselves, and that's why the rulers embraced acting like Satanic retards.

After 1989, world history is locked in. None of what happens now would happen unless the rulers were not confident that this was inevitable and desirable and the only idea they have left. This idea was always at the apex of human civilization, so it is not surprising it did turn out this way.

Eventually this beast will do its thing, and the next thing will start - I expect in 40 or 50 years they will memory hole everything they did now and act like they dindu nothing. But, all that was done will last forever. Humans, in total, are irredeemably retarded. There is nothing intellectual in them, and the religion they chose will wipe out any sign of independent thought they have. There will be attempts to build something, but humans have become so degraded that it is improper to speak of the concepts that once held spiritual and political currency after long enough. Already, large swathes of humanity have given up completely, not expecting this to ever be different. For themselves, it is certainly over, and they're going through the motions out of a sense that maybe divine intervention happens, or because they have nothing better to do but live. There is nothing "up there" that would construct anything. Their last hope is that they have some super "wonder weapon" that will allow them to become immortal gods or super-computers, and this is the greatest folly. The Fall of Man will be complete. Failed race.

>>479860
<dooomer misanthrope ramblings
sigh
>After 1989, world history is locked in.
After the Soviet fall, reactionary counter revolution undid a lot of progress in the world. However history is not 'locked in', because that's idealist nonsense. History is just stories about the past, which sometime are true.