[JohnRawls]

I think the larger point here, JR, is that all of that 'banking' and finance and such is all *overhead* for society.

If everyone has to worry and fuss every other day over whether the U.S. interest rate is going to go *up*, or *down*, then that's hardly a self-sustaining political economy for everyone's convenience.

*Several* countries, through no fault of their own (just like individuals), wind up 'underwater' and *dependent* on external financing, just because the system doesn't work the way it "should" -- take a look at Sri Lanka or Pakistan:







---


History, Macro-Micro -- Political (Cognitive) Dissonance

Spoiler: show

No, absolutely not.

Without the banks and financial institutions there won't be as much technological progress and progress in the economy because investment would be miniscule. This is what the far leftists don't understand. It was one of the reasons why the USSR collapsed. Channeling money in to productive investments to increase technological growth and productivity growth is very important. The downside of non-stop cost cutting for the financial investment is questionable though that those institutions produce but once again, it is hard to judge in 100% of cases. I would say that usually it is an overreaction while in 30%-40% it is necessary

[Pants-of-dog]

Banks were instrumental in South Africa’s scheme to get around international weapons sanctions during Apartheid.

With their financial help, the Apartheid era government was able to continue to buy weapons for its militarized police force and for its military actions abroad, despite the international arms embargo in place at the time.

[ckaihatsu]

global syndicalist currency

That is a good idea for sure.

I think though that it is very futuristic.

You're not being *dismissive* here, are you -- ? (grin)

I see some possibilities for this being implemented if AI and all that means actually is done to free productive worker time to be able to organize family life, community life and work life in a way that it merges with the country's own organization.

Lip-service. Thanks. (grin)

Please note that you're subsuming *everything else* that you've written about, to 'the country's own organization'.

JR is correct, empirically -- that's *Stalinist* / 'tankie' talk, around the *nation-state*, ultimately (not the working class).


History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show

---

The big advantage of the big capitalist banks and the investment bankers both commercial and not commercial is their ability to be present in over 200 nations. It makes it a huge behemoth of economic power and economic flexibility.

You sound so *starry-eyed* -- ! (grin)

You got to counter that with emerging worker-controlled credit unions

I may not have *heard* of this one before -- isn't it still *corporatist*, though, like Mondragon in Spain, since the worker-owners will have to *hew* to the dictates of capitalist profit-making -- ?

Any *details*, perhaps -- ?

and ties to many nations going the way of independence from those bankers wanting to control public funds.

The bigger the economies of the nations pooling the resources get? The better they can absorb the competition.

I frankly think it is inevitable Chris. Simply because the debt from that structure of the pro-capitalist crowd is not going to be payable and the Chinese creditors are going to be competing for the resources of the nations who used to have only the USA and Europe, backers and bankers to contend with.

Correct, and agreed.

Politics lags events, of course, and I'd say that it's *already over* -- Biden's physical constitution *does* personify the nation-state itself, in that it can't (and *shouldn't*) respond to multilateral trade events outside of its own territory, as between Iran and Venezuela, for starters.


Iran-Venezuela Direct Shipping Line to Support Trade, Merchants

https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2023 ... -merchants


Also:

The sanctions-regime jig is up, since the U.S. *itself* is buying from Russia, through Italy.

See the following video, from a previous post:


Russian Oil Is Fueling American Cars Via Sanctions Loophole ｜ WSJ

viewtopic.php?p=15266808#p15266808

---

India, China, and Japan are going to be lending money to the underdeveloped world. And if there is competition now? The one banking state is gone.

Eventually, if the debts are unpayable? Default is a certainty and eventually, unrest and the worker credit union is going to be absolutely the only thing that might work. It is a glaring contradiction.

Isn't *insurance* the sticking-point there, though, since it's ultimately a political *reform* (of refinancing / revaluing debt) -- who would 'underwrite' / take-the-business-of that kind of client, or am I just being ignorant -- ?

I'd like to know how a 'worker credit union' fits into the larger capitalist landscape, as with, perhaps, black-owned cannabis dispensary businesses today.

Also, I don't think you understand how the bourgeois international system works -- any 'imbalances' can be 'rebalanced', *politically* -- look at the Plaza Accord, for a relatively recent example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord


No contentions otherwise.

[ckaihatsu]

No, absolutely not.

Without the banks and financial institutions there won't be as much technological progress and progress in the economy because investment would be miniscule. This is what the far leftists don't understand.

This is *blatantly* patronizing, since the whole *politics* / point of 'far-leftism' (so-to-speak), *is* the societal superseding / surpassing of finance capital.

Whether you realize it or not you're effectively *selling* the idea of commercial (vs. investment / finance) capital, as though that's the only conceivably possible mechanism for a sound political economy.

There have been several efforts or appeals in the United States to reinstate repealed sections of the Glass–Steagall Act following the financial crisis of 2007-08, as well as elsewhere to adopt similar financial reforms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2% ... orm_debate

---


Here's my own, for contrast:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338


---

It was one of the reasons why the USSR collapsed. Channeling money in to productive investments to increase technological growth and productivity growth is very important. The downside of non-stop cost cutting for the financial investment is questionable though that those institutions produce but once again, it is hard to judge in 100% of cases. I would say that usually it is an overreaction while in 30%-40% it is necessary

So you favor equity-capital vs. societal-austerity -- does *that* about sum-it-up -- ?


Political Spectrum, Simplified

Spoiler: show

You support statist underwriting / funding of equity capital vehicles, as via the shadow banking system. Correct -- ?

[Tainari88]

You're not being *dismissive* here, are you -- ? (grin)


Chris I am never dismissive. I liked what you said. I just think the way these bankers are today and in the foreseeable future? They are the worst of the worst. To get rid of that system is going to take political and economic courage and a lot of strategy to make that pressure happen. It won't happen quickly but it will happen.


Lip-service. Thanks. (grin)

Nothing about what I write is lip service only. I like you too much for lip service.

Please note that you're subsuming *everything else* that you've written about, to 'the country's own organization'.
Yes, all nations are not going to be agreeing to everything the rest are doing. I am being realistic. For me the best organization is a working class democracy but one that encompasses something really interesting. Liberating people through technology and also having minimum levels of basic income and offering them freedom to shape their own lives and fit their own aspirations. A good balance. It is unrealistic to think all human societies are going to organize themselves the same. It is not really going to be that way. There will be diversity. The goal is to have good living standards no matter where. The countries living in misery now and without basics get basics and not only that have development that is about true self realization in many levels. Nothing subsumed about that Chris. But it requires to work hard on class differences and conflicts and inequality. Without working on that a lot there won't be any progress.

JR is correct, empirically -- that's *Stalinist* / 'tankie' talk, around the *nation-state*, ultimately (not the working class).

I don't subscribe to Stalinism Chris. I never have. When I say the nation state I am talking about real governments who are not beholden to banks and capital to make economic decisions and that reflect fully the working people who democratized the workplace already. But AI is strange. Who know who benefits from that? I think the societies are going to have release people from drudgery and unfulfilling work loads and work positions. It hopefully truly allows creative and fulfilling work for people and not just working in crappy jobs that are as Bregman states are bullshit jobs that capitalism is good at reinventing.
History, Macro-Micro -- simplified

Spoiler: show

---





You sound so *starry-eyed* -- ! (grin)

I think you got to have a bit of imagination to be a good socialist. Otherwise change your political column Chris





I may not have *heard* of this one before -- isn't it still *corporatist*, though, like Mondragon in Spain, since the worker-owners will have to *hew* to the dictates of capitalist profit-making -- ?

The critical part of socialist style worker organizations owned by workers is that they need to be a lot more stable than their capitalist competition. Enough to attract the commitment of workers themselves and they also have to integrate AI and also be strategic and beat them at stability, and change all decisions to worker leadership. It is hard because it requires a lot of great communication, clear goals and responsibility for all the participating and equal members. But you got to start somewhere Chris. I am always open to new ideas. Remember that Chris. I am fluid.

Any *details*, perhaps -- ?





Correct, and agreed.

Politics lags events, of course, and I'd say that it's *already over* -- Biden's physical constitution *does* personify the nation-state itself, in that it can't (and *shouldn't*) respond to multilateral trade events outside of its own territory, as between Iran and Venezuela, for starters.


Iran-Venezuela Direct Shipping Line to Support Trade, Merchants

https://www.tasnimnews.com/en/news/2023 ... -merchants

The USA kills that all the time. Lol. No more dictates from afar. That is going to be almost impossible to sustain with multipolar worlds.
Also:







---





Isn't *insurance* the sticking-point there, though, since it's ultimately a political *reform* (of refinancing / revaluing debt) -- who would 'underwrite' / take-the-business-of that kind of client, or am I just being ignorant -- ?

I'd like to know how a 'worker credit union' fits into the larger capitalist landscape, as with, perhaps, black-owned cannabis dispensary businesses today.

Also, I don't think you understand how the bourgeois international system works -- any 'imbalances' can be 'rebalanced', *politically* -- look at the Plaza Accord, for a relatively recent example.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plaza_Accord


No contentions otherwise.

Mexico has some interesting worker led and very strong coops. It sustains entire communities and it grows all the time.

It is an interesting model. They started in the 1870s Chris.

Read this:

https://coops4dev.coop/en/4devamericas/mexico

[ckaihatsu]

I don't subscribe to Stalinism Chris. I never have. When I say the nation state I am talking about real governments who are not beholden to banks and capital to make economic decisions and that reflect fully the working people who democratized the workplace already. But AI is strange. Who know who benefits from that? I think the societies are going to have release people from drudgery and unfulfilling work loads and work positions. It hopefully truly allows creative and fulfilling work for people and not just working in crappy jobs that are as Bregman states are bullshit jobs that capitalism is good at reinventing.

I just wonder if banks is *enough*, given the past of 'Occupy'.

Criticism

A number of criticisms of Occupy Wall Street have emerged, both during the movement's most active period and subsequently after. These criticism include a lack of clear goals, false claim as the 99%, a lack of measurable change, trouble conveying its message, a failure to continue its support base, pursuing the wrong audience, and accusations of anti-Semitism.

The Occupy Movement has been criticized for not having a set of clear demands that could be used to prompt formal policy change. This lack of agenda has been cited as the reason why the Occupy Movement fizzled before achieving any specific legislative changes. Although the lack of demands has simultaneously been argued as one of the advantages of the movement,[150] the protesters in Occupy rejected the idea of having only one demand, or a set of demands, and instead represented a host of broad demands that did not specifically allude to a desired policy agenda.[151][152]

Although the movement's primary slogan was "We are the 99%," it was criticized for not encompassing the voice of the entire 99%, specifically lower class individuals and minorities. For example, it was characterized as being overwhelmingly white[153] and poorly representative of the needs of the immigrant population. The lack of African American presence was especially notable, with the movement being criticized in several news outlets and journal articles for its lack of inclusivity and racial diversity.[154][155][156][157]

Some publications mentioned that the Occupy Wall Street Movement failed to spark any true institutional changes in banks and in Corporate America. This idea is supported by the number of scandals that continued to emerge following the financial crisis such as the London Whale incident, the LIBOR-fixing scandal, and the HSBC money laundering discovery. Furthermore, the idea of excess compensation through salaries and bonuses at Wall Street banks continued to be a contentious topic following the Occupy protests, especially as bonuses increased during a period of falling bank profits.[158][159][160]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wa ... #Criticism

---

On April 7, 2022, a display for the product was featured at the Tesla Giga Texas manufacturing facility during the Cyber Rodeo event. Musk said that he hopes to have the robot production-ready by 2023 and claimed Optimus will eventually be able to do "anything that humans don’t want to do."[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optimus_(robot)

---

The critical part of socialist style worker organizations owned by workers is that they need to be a lot more stable than their capitalist competition. Enough to attract the commitment of workers themselves and they also have to integrate AI and also be strategic and beat them at stability, and change all decisions to worker leadership. It is hard because it requires a lot of great communication, clear goals and responsibility for all the participating and equal members. But you got to start somewhere Chris. I am always open to new ideas. Remember that Chris. I am fluid.

*Logistically* all that's needed would be *PoFo*, or a wiki / WordPress website, for the whole company's 'groupware' -- but the *communications* isn't really the sticking-point. It's getting public support for *collectivization* of various workplaces, perhaps 'Occupy'-style.

2012 occupation

On February 23, 2012, about 65 workers initiated a second sit-in strike of Serious Materials (formerly Republic Windows and Doors). The occupation was in response to factory owners Serious Energy's announcement that it would be closing the factory and consolidating operations in Colorado and Pennsylvania. Workers ended the occupation at approximately 2 AM on February 24, 2012, after owners agreed to keep the factory open for 90 days. United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America Local 1110 president Armando Robles said that he wanted workers to own and operate the plant themselves.[15] Robles and other former Republic and Serious workers have now formed a worker cooperative that makes replacement windows, called New Era Windows.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_ ... occupation

---

Mexico has some interesting worker led and very strong coops. It sustains entire communities and it grows all the time.

It is an interesting model. They started in the 1870s Chris.

Read this:

https://coops4dev.coop/en/4devamericas/mexico

Okay, will do, and I'll get back to you on it. Thanks, Tainari.

[Potemkin]

Tankie means that you support far left ideas like banks running the world. They are not the most honest institutions but they definately don't run the world. They are probably the most egalitarian institutions to who they give money to or whos money the store: black, white, potato, criminal, non-criminal.. they don't care.

The only thing they care is that regulations are followed and that you can give that money back. So the whole idea that the banks are a cabal of bad white interests is insane. This is straight up communist talk right from Karl Marx.

And before you say okay, i might have been wrong but financial/banking institutions are still bad. To some degree sure but they are not worse than any business that makes money. The basically provide services that either store money or provide financing which are crucial to any part of even under developed economies.

That is why you are a tankie.

Actually, the word ‘tankie’ means something different. During the Cold War, there were many working-class people in Britain who supported the Soviet Union. And they specifically supported the Soviet Union’s right to keep the nations of the Warsaw Pact in line if they tried to rebel or break away from the Soviet Union’s control. They were known in the 1960s and 70s as “tankies” because of their support for the Brezhnev Doctrine (“send in the tanks!”). Lol. More generally, the word ‘tankie’ is applied to any supporter of Stalinism, in theory or in practice. Anarchists or left-wingers in general, however, are definitely not tankies. You don’t have to be a tankie to believe that banks run the world, or that this is a bad thing.

As much as anyone wants to dislike banks, investment, financing, storing money are all important work that needs to be done. So complaining that banks or investment institutions don't give money to some country while the country is full of corruption, mismanagement, money laundering and so on is not weird at all or some sort of "Cabal". It is good business practices or not wanting to loose money or go to jail.

John Dillinger was once asked why he robbed banks. He replied, “because that’s where the money is.” Ironically, this also why banks go to resource-rich nations - because that’s where the money is. And democracy has a nasty habit of getting in the way of banks stealing making money.

[ckaihatsu]

International anti-imperialist conference begins in Venezuela

https://mailchi.mp/fightbacknews.org/at ... de79fb44fe

[JohnRawls]

Actually, the word ‘tankie’ means something different. During the Cold War, there were many working-class people in Britain who supported the Soviet Union. And they specifically supported the Soviet Union’s right to keep the nations of the Warsaw Pact in line if they tried to rebel or break away from the Soviet Union’s control. They were known in the 1960s and 70s as “tankies” because of their support for the Brezhnev Doctrine (“send in the tanks!”). Lol. More generally, the word ‘tankie’ is applied to any supporter of Stalinism, in theory or in practice. Anarchists or left-wingers in general, however, are definitely not tankies. You don’t have to be a tankie to believe that banks run the world, or that this is a bad thing.


John Dillinger was once asked why he robbed banks. He replied, “because that’s where the money is.” Ironically, this also why banks go to resource-rich nations - because that’s where the money is. And democracy has a nasty habit of getting in the way of banks stealing making money.

Didn't know that, nice to know.

Resource extraction is the simplest business to actually do because it doesn't require much, just some investment and even not a competent manager will be able to do it. It is not semiconductor manufacturing.. As long as you have the machinery, then it will probably work and will be profitable if it is a needed resource. So yes, it is easy to get investment for natural resource extraction as long as you are not a total retard.

[Tainari88]

Actually, the word ‘tankie’ means something different. During the Cold War, there were many working-class people in Britain who supported the Soviet Union. And they specifically supported the Soviet Union’s right to keep the nations of the Warsaw Pact in line if they tried to rebel or break away from the Soviet Union’s control. They were known in the 1960s and 70s as “tankies” because of their support for the Brezhnev Doctrine (“send in the tanks!”). Lol. More generally, the word ‘tankie’ is applied to any supporter of Stalinism, in theory or in practice. Anarchists or left-wingers in general, however, are definitely not tankies. You don’t have to be a tankie to believe that banks run the world, or that this is a bad thing.


John Dillinger was once asked why he robbed banks. He replied, “because that’s where the money is.” Ironically, this also why banks go to resource-rich nations - because that’s where the money is. And democracy has a nasty habit of getting in the way of banks stealing making money.

How about electing unelected bank panels to run a nation. And to void out any real local control politically of a nation? Having bank panels put in place and austerity measures to be imposed to the point of having an economy not be able to produce enough taxes to keep the lights on and the water running?

But somehow the banks are not into influencing political decisions? No, that is not correct. Economics influences poverty and poverty influences inequality and it effects the economy of a nation over the long haul.

[Pants-of-dog]

In SA, due to a lack of regulation and whatnot, old mines are generally just abandoned.

This lack of decommissioning is, of course, helpful for the bottom line. Why spend money on a mine that is not producing any more, right?

The fact that this leads to more pollution, unsafe conditions for locals, and unregulated and unsafe working conditions for the artisanal miners (as they call the poor people who come to work any last remaining deposits) is not really an expense for the company either.

[ckaihatsu]

Mexico has some interesting worker led and very strong coops. It sustains entire communities and it grows all the time.

It is an interesting model. They started in the 1870s Chris.

Read this:

https://coops4dev.coop/en/4devamericas/mexico

Okay, will do, and I'll get back to you on it. Thanks, Tainari.

*This* is you, right, Tainari -- ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement


Also:

Nasserism’s legacy

More than 50 years after the overthrow of the old feudal regime in Egypt, the reintroduction of vouchers illustrates the inability of the national bourgeoisie and its military backers to resolve the fundamental social questions confronting the working class and peasantry. It is also an indictment of 15 years of structural adjustment programmes imposed by the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. These financial institutions claimed that liberalisation of the economy and removal of subsidies would lead to a productive and profitable Egyptian economy fulfilling the “overarching objective” of the World Bank’s Strategy for Egypt “to reduce poverty and unemployment.” Now they blame the “adverse shifts in the external environment as well as a rapid growth of domestic credit” for blowing their plans off course and raising “some concern about a possible increase in poverty incidence.”

(It should be noted that a presentation made at the World Bank Institute in December 2002 said that the “reforms undertaken in much of the [North Africa / Middle East] region during the 1990’s reduced fiscal costs but [that] the impact on the poor is unknown.”)

The origins of the subsidy system lie in the limited programme of economic and social reform carried out by Colonel Gamal Abdul Nasser after World War II.

Following the war Egypt experienced a prolonged period of unrest that affected all social classes. The working class faced the possibility of taking power. The Egyptian bourgeoisie resented continuing British and French imperialist domination despite formal independence, the army was humiliated by its defeat by the new state of Israel in 1948 and land reform became a vital question for the peasantry.

As the crisis developed and in order to pre-empt revolution, the Free Officers movement in the Egyptian Army overthrew the British puppet, King Farouk, in 1952 using the banner of Egyptian nationalism. The Revolutionary Command Council installed General Muhammed Naguib as president, whom Nasser ousted two years later.

Nasser promoted pan-Arab nationalism as an alternative to international socialism and became leader of the “non-aligned” movement, playing off the Soviet Union against the United States. In Egypt, Nasser portrayed himself as an Arab socialist and formed the Arab Socialist Union in 1962 into which the various communist factions liquidated themselves. Egypt became the model for many other national bourgeois regimes that came to power in the post-war period.

The Egyptian Stalinist Democratic Movement for National Liberation played a crucial role in these events. Adhering to Stalin’s “two stage” theory, the communist party insisted that the class struggle in the underdeveloped countries be subordinated to a popular and national front with the bourgeoisie. Socialism could only come in the distant future after the establishment of an Egyptian capitalist democracy.

The abolition of the monarchy, distribution of land to peasants, secularism, anti-imperialism and nationalisation of the Suez Canal were extremely popular measures that helped transform Egypt.

Nasser nationalised industries and financial institutions to provide the basic infrastructure required by private capital, introduced a state monopoly of foreign trade and launched progressive social policies to appease the masses. Other factors including substantial aid from the Soviet Union, high oil prices, transfers from Egyptian workers living abroad and earnings from the Suez Canal also helped the economy grow at a very rapid pace. By the mid 1960s, real wages had nearly doubled and growth averaged four percent a year despite a doubling of the population to 37 million people.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/05/egyp-m05.html

[Tainari88]

*This* is you, right, Tainari -- ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement


Also:

Chris I really thought it a great idea. Not be sucked into a Cold War division of the resource pie. So I agreed with it. What went wrong is when the leadership of some of it had to succumb for economic survival. It needs to be advanced a lot further to be more effective Chris. I think this Climate Change issue just might be the catalyst it needs to come up with a compromise and get socialism that is truly democratic. Not like the Egyptian leaders cave-ins to Capitalism in trying to survive politically. I think we might be in for a serious opportunity. As in Crisis is both Danger and Opportunity. I think the future is going to be exciting. I stay positive.

[ckaihatsu]

Chris I really thought it a great idea. Not be sucked into a Cold War division of the resource pie. So I agreed with it. What went wrong is when the leadership of some of it had to succumb for economic survival. It needs to be advanced a lot further to be more effective Chris. I think this Climate Change issue just might be the catalyst it needs to come up with a compromise and get socialism that is truly democratic. Not like the Egyptian leaders cave-ins to Capitalism in trying to survive politically. I think we might be in for a serious opportunity. As in Crisis is both Danger and Opportunity. I think the future is going to be exciting. I stay positive.

Fair enough. Thanks for the response.