let’s break down what capital flight, people leaving, government debt, and the gold bonanza mean. The libs are scratching their heads, but from a Marxist perspective, it isn’t a mystery. It’s just late-stage capitalism playing its greatest hits.

The billionaire class and their lackeys can read the balance sheet of their own system. They see that the profits have been squeezed out of us, the working class is tapped out, and the whole house of cards is wobbling. Hence why we’re seeing capital flight. They’re pulling their money out because the mobile nature of capital means they can park it in safer markets.

And the gold rush is just the bourgeoisie quietly admitting their entire financial system is built on hot air. They’re ditching liquidity for a physical asset that will hold value when the inevitable crash comes. It’s a massive vote of no confidence in the very system they built. We’re seeing a classic sign of over-accumulation with nowhere profitable left to invest.

Now, about the whole people fleeing abroad thing. The people who are leaving are those with the means to do so, namely, the workers who are still relatively well off. When even the so-called professional-managerial class, such as engineers and other tech workers, are getting priced out of a future and leaving, you know the system is failing. It’s obviously problematic since it’s a loss of talent, but at a deeper level, it’s a crisis of social reproduction for the most privileged group of workers. If the labour aristocracy can’t make it, what does that say about the rest of us in the proletariat? The canary in the coal mine has just packed its bags and fled the country.

And then we have the government’s role in all this. Our state is the management committee for the bourgeoisie, and it’s doing its job perfectly. All that government borrowing and quantitative easing was just socializing the losses of the capitalists during the pandemic, creating a massive bailout for them. Now comes the bill, and they’re handing it to us in the form of austerity. Here’s what PSAC says about Carney’s announcement of sweeping public service cuts.

They’re cutting public services to shred the social wage and force us deeper into reliance on the capitalist market, while funneling money into the military. The military needs to be kept happy in case of any social unrest that their austerity will cause, and to tie Canada tighter to US imperialism as the domestic economy rots. The money is going to cops, jets, and bombs instead of our healthcare or education.

We’re most likely headed for another 2008 style crash, and these crashes are themselves a feature of the system. They’re how capitalism resets itself by devaluing our labour, destroying excess capacity, and letting the big capitalists gobble up everything for pennies on the dollar. It’s the centralization of capital in its most brutal form.

And in the political vacuum that we have here, without a strong, organized socialist left to offer a real alternative, people get funnelled into the waiting arms of right-wing populism. They’ll blame immigrants, wokeism, or whatever scapegoat the ruling class offers to direct our anger away from them. We’re seeing it all over Europe, and it’s coming here hard.

The future for Canada is grim with the class war that’s heating up like never before. The capitalists are preparing for it with their gold, their capital flight, and their militarized state. The question is, are we? We need to build our own power, our own organizations, and our own vision for a world beyond this parasitic system.

  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    You know as well as I do the Manifesto is short enough anyone could read it (and he makes another fun prediction about the invention of the railway leading to the end of nations). I actually did Das Kapital too, through the bleeding eyes. The main use has been being able to say I did it to people like you.

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Thank you for illustrating the difference between reading and comprehending something. Because if you actually read Kapital with any comprehension then you’d realize that what you did was spew nonsense. Marx spends multiple volumes discussing how financial capitalism works. You sir are a clown.

      • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        4 days ago

        Are you sure I’m a sir? You can insult instead of engaging, but misgendering people can actually get you in trouble.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          4 days ago

          You’ve said nothing of substance, so not sure what you expect me to engage with here. You didn’t even bother to address a single point in the original post that you replied to. If you want people to extend you respect then don’t act like a clown. Sorry if I’ve misgendered you based on the toxicity you’ve exhibited here. Should never assume.

          • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Excellent. You’ll get banned slightly later by your not-toxic comrades that way.

            I mean, we did get in a bit of engaging before the inevitable implode-and-insult thing I was waiting for. As I remember it, “as you can see, gold will inevitably always be the only form of money” was a major part of one of those exact chapters you mentioned, although obviously written in a more obtuse Das Kapital-ish way.

            He was a smart man, but he did die before germ theory really took off. And goddamn, he didn’t need to torture sentences like that to prove it.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 days ago

              I’ve seen chatbots string together more coherent arguments than this. You’ve gracefully sidestepped every point of substance only to start deflecting, which is quite a performance. Your trolling is so transparent you’re not fooling anybody.

              And the fabricated Marx quotes? It’s a bold and frankly pathetic strategy to just invent passages from a book you’re pretending to have read. You’re essentially just admitting you lack the intellectual horsepower to actually engage with what he wrote.

              It is absolutely hilarious watching you cosplay as someone who has a clue about the subject you’re attempting to debate. So, for anyone still following this thread, let’s deal with this drivel directly and expose this fraud.

              You’re original claim was, and I quote: “Marx gold has been king (actually didn’t he write that fiat currency was impossible?).”

              This is false. Not only did Marx not think fiat currency was impossible, he actually dedicated a significant part of Chapter 3 of the first volume of Das Kapital, to explaining exactly how it works. What you claim is a common misreading of what Marx wrote about money. It’s ok though, this is dense stuff, so it’s easy to get the wrong impression if you have poor reading comprehension

              The actual argument rather than the one you made up is way more interesting though. The key thing to get is his distinction between money as a measure of value and money as a medium of circulation. For money to be a universal yardstick to measure the value of everything else like chairs or coats, he argued it had to have its own value, which is why a commodity like gold historically took on this role. That’s the part you appear to be fixating on. However, when money is just being used to circulate goods where you sell a coat for money, then use the money to buy bread, the actual gold coin doesn’t need to be there. It’s just a placeholder, a symbol representing that value.

              Since it’s just a symbol in that moment, it can be replaced by something with no intrinsic value, like a piece of paper. He then proceeded to describe the state stepping in and issuing worthless tokens to circulate in place of gold. Here’s a direct quote from the book you claim to have read:

              Hence the state can designate any token – for example, a piece of paper appropriately labelled– as a representative of money, a money token.

              That’s basically the original definition of fiat currency. He literally explained how it was as a logical development where the symbol of value gets detached from the valuable thing itself. He never argued that gold was money because of some magical property. What he showed was that it became money because it had the right physical characteristics for the job. Once again, if you bothered reading the book you’d see the following line that clears it up:

              although gold and silver are not by Nature money, money is by Nature gold and silver

              In other words, the need for money arose from the economic system, and gold just happened to be the best material to fill that role at the time. It’s a functional argument, not a dogmatic one.

              My advice is just delete your account and go back to reddit where trolls like you belong. You’ll be much happier there interracting with people on your own intellectual level.

              • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 days ago

                What you claim is a common misreading of what Marx wrote about money.

                Sooo it’s not just me, lots of other people read it this way too.

                In other words, the need for money arose from the economic system, and gold just happened to be the best material to fill that role at the time. It’s a functional argument, not a dogmatic one.

                Sure, which is entirely reasonable if you’re writing in the Victorian era, and no other kind of money has existed to your knowledge (Europeans didn’t pay much mind to what the deal was with cowrie shells). As was the thing about the spread of railways leading immediately to global communism - it was a huge, unprecedented shift at the time. Scholarship advances, though.

                I’ll just skip the return poo-flinging, since you’re right, we might be alone. If you mistake that for weakness that’s your problem.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆@lemmy.mlOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 days ago

                  Yes, you’re in no way unique in having poor reading comprehension.

                  Sure, which is entirely reasonable if you’re writing in the Victorian era, and no other kind of money has existed to your knowledge (Europeans didn’t pay much mind to what the deal was with cowrie shells). As was the thing about the spread of railways leading immediately to global communism - it was a huge, unprecedented shift at the time. Scholarship advances, though.

                  • CanadaPlus@lemmy.sdf.org
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    3 days ago

                    Ooor everyone else is right and you’re a zealot reading what you want into a holy book.

                    his union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry, and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another. It was just this contact that was needed to centralise the numerous local struggles, all of the same character, into one national struggle between classes. But every class struggle is a political struggle. And that union, to attain which the burghers of the Middle Ages, with their miserable highways, required centuries, the modern proletarian, thanks to railways, achieve in a few years.

                    It’s been more than a few years, and I’m not sure Marx’s imminent revolution is any more imminent.