Doesn't this imply that international bourgeoisie sees China as a better steward of capitalism than the US? Indeed, my understanding of the CIPS system is that it is decentralized in some sense (I have no idea how this actually works), which I take to mean that international bourgeoisie would be insulated from the whims of the operator of CIPS (i.e., China).
While I don't want to live in a world where the US can rugpull people's assets for no reason, isn't it also concerning that this new "improved" system could completely insulate the international bourgeoisie from regulation/consequences? Or do I not understand the system?
To give an anecdote to your first question: I've sat on earnings calls for big , high-tech manufacturers where the gist basically was expressing dismay that "we've been cut out of these markets due to sanctions / trade wars. This is a hit to potential earnings. We're a global company blah blah blah."
The personal ideological convictions of the capitalist doesnt really matter because as a whole capital knows no loyalty to anything but it's growth and ever-increasing exploitation. it can't be controlled.
And its also cathartic because death to America ;)
Yes, of course - we all know they're not loyal in any sense. I guess I just have a hang-up on this subject because I want to believe that China can eventually pose a threat to capitalism, but it's hard to reconcile that with the idea that they're the best stewards of it in the near term.
The Communists really are the best at doing capitalism. The primary reason by my guess is that the capitalists learn too much :zizek: instead of learning how their system actually works.
Doesn't this imply that international bourgeoisie sees China as a better steward of capitalism than the US? Indeed, my understanding of the CIPS system is that it is decentralized in some sense (I have no idea how this actually works), which I take to mean that international bourgeoisie would be insulated from the whims of the operator of CIPS (i.e., China).
While I don't want to live in a world where the US can rugpull people's assets for no reason, isn't it also concerning that this new "improved" system could completely insulate the international bourgeoisie from regulation/consequences? Or do I not understand the system?
To give an anecdote to your first question: I've sat on earnings calls for big , high-tech manufacturers where the gist basically was expressing dismay that "we've been cut out of these markets due to sanctions / trade wars. This is a hit to potential earnings. We're a global company blah blah blah."
The personal ideological convictions of the capitalist doesnt really matter because as a whole capital knows no loyalty to anything but it's growth and ever-increasing exploitation. it can't be controlled.
And its also cathartic because death to America ;)
deleted by creator
Yes, of course - we all know they're not loyal in any sense. I guess I just have a hang-up on this subject because I want to believe that China can eventually pose a threat to capitalism, but it's hard to reconcile that with the idea that they're the best stewards of it in the near term.
The Communists really are the best at doing capitalism. The primary reason by my guess is that the capitalists learn too much :zizek: instead of learning how their system actually works.
sniff