The thing I think is "funniest" is that Britain is gonna be punished financially for this right. So do people really think the voters are going to be like "oh really messed up on that one whoops lol." Or are they going to be angry at the hebraic financiers and their stooges. Hm Hm let me have a think.
This may come as a shock to you, but not all financiers are Jews or the stooges of Jews.
Tell it to the 17.5 million fascists who voted to leave EU
All the brits I know are pro-leave, so I haven't encountered this perspective I . Could you explain this comment?
Around 1973 the rich countries were forced to abandon the gold standard. This is relevant because the end of the Bretton Woods system marked the beginning of neoliberalism and modern globalization -- I say modern globalization because I'm not sure if even now the %age of global GDP involved in international trade is as high as it was in 1913. As of a few years ago it wasn't. But in the imperialist era a large proportion of global trade was between colonies and metropoles, with the colonial project working principally to extract money (gold) and resources from colonies.
The United States did not abandon the gold standard voluntarily but was forced to by the development of capitalism in West Germany and Japan; the growth of the economies and financial systems in these and other countries caused a persistent outflow of gold-denominated dollars such that by the 70s there were far more dollars than there were gold reserves so the system was already kind of a farce. If the US tried to constrain the supply it would have caused a deflationary crisis. That sort of thing had happened before -- from 1874 there was a period of like 20 years where they couldnt find enough gold to keep up with demand for dollars so the government was just "welp guess there's no more dollars then" and it hurt the economy for 2 decades. But at that time the government was strong enough to do that and there wasn't a way for financiers to like, trade gold for pesos on the open market, pesos for dollars, dollars to gold, gold back to pesos etc. (at least not in like, million-dollar increments), which is the kind of thing that was messing up gold reserves by the 1970s. Remember though that the extraction of money from colonies was the foundation of first worldism and also the foundation of middle-class wealth in the rich countries. For as long as that system persisted the middle classes in the rich countries did generally well.
The transition to fiat currencies enabled the neoliberal project by vastly expanding the power and geography of the financial system. That's sort of the theme of globalization over the recent decades; the rich countries still extract resources and surplus value from poor ones but money can go anywhere in any quantity. So neoliberalism has been good for the transnational elite of poor countries and bad for the working class of rich ones. Weirdly enough all the regular people in rich countries are real salty about it.
The problem is that the xenophobic rightists in the rich countries want to turn back the clock to the imperialist era, which is neither desirable nor possible. The reason I called them fascists is that
this is a play we have seen before. It was never going to be possible for the Germans to colonize eastern Europe or for the Japanese to build an empire in East Asia because the development of the productive forces had proceeded too far to bring back the 19th century. Similarly it's not like Britain can go to war and get India back or whatever. But the tension between first worldism and convergence (the rich and poor countries becoming more similar to each other) is one of the primary contradictions of our era and all of these intensifying fights that are increasingly being won by rightists in rich countries go to show that the first worldism and white supremacy are still salient to politics
particularly in the vaccuum of doodlysquat left by neoliberalism.
You may have heard the expression "socialism or barbarism"? Rosa Luxemburg's point was that if we don't build transnational communism, we will instead have national chauvinism and race war. That's still true. But thanks to the victory of neoliberalism there is not even a socialist agenda in most of the rich countries -- and even when one exists it is
still nationally chauvinist or at least first worldist. So we are set for an inevitably intensifying conflict among rich countries between the fascists and the neoliberals, as well as an inevitably intensifying conflict between the waning first world and the growing power of the third world.
