This was inevitable once the US threw Russia out of SWIFT. CIPS is essentially an alternative to SWIFT managed by China and adapts it down to even using the same formatting standards so that they are largely interoperable.
The US pulled this latest move of weaponizing SWIFT access within 2-3 months of seizing all of the savings of Afghanistan banks. The United States is increasingly demonstrating to capitalists internationally that it is not a reliable steward of a global banking system. This kind of erratic behavior is not conducive to the wealthy internationally and is clearly enough of an inconvenience for Russia's oligarchy to shift over to alternatives. Will be interesting to see what other countries follow suit.
I'm going to have to look into this more, but my suspicion is that America was able to impose financial embargoes on smaller countries in the recent past only because those tended to either be relatively exploited already or AES countries hostile to capital.
You do not fuck with the money of billionaires if you want to stay useful to them. It seems like the US decided to prioritize its own imperialist interests over those of the international bourgeoisie. That might have been a move that worked for them under Reagan, but the cold war ended over 30 years ago and that playbook is stale.
Most capitalists prefer a certain degree of stability in infrastructure and conditions because they are fucking lazy and consistency makes it easier for them to guess how to make the line go up. Cutting Russia off from SWIFT probably fucked a bunch of execs out of quarterly bonuses. Those execs are going to do whatever they can to stop that from ever happening again.
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.
This was inevitable once the US threw Russia out of SWIFT. CIPS is essentially an alternative to SWIFT managed by China and adapts it down to even using the same formatting standards so that they are largely interoperable.
The US pulled this latest move of weaponizing SWIFT access within 2-3 months of seizing all of the savings of Afghanistan banks. The United States is increasingly demonstrating to capitalists internationally that it is not a reliable steward of a global banking system. This kind of erratic behavior is not conducive to the wealthy internationally and is clearly enough of an inconvenience for Russia's oligarchy to shift over to alternatives. Will be interesting to see what other countries follow suit.
I'm going to have to look into this more, but my suspicion is that America was able to impose financial embargoes on smaller countries in the recent past only because those tended to either be relatively exploited already or AES countries hostile to capital.
You do not fuck with the money of billionaires if you want to stay useful to them. It seems like the US decided to prioritize its own imperialist interests over those of the international bourgeoisie. That might have been a move that worked for them under Reagan, but the cold war ended over 30 years ago and that playbook is stale.
Most capitalists prefer a certain degree of stability in infrastructure and conditions because they are fucking lazy and consistency makes it easier for them to guess how to make the line go up. Cutting Russia off from SWIFT probably fucked a bunch of execs out of quarterly bonuses. Those execs are going to do whatever they can to stop that from ever happening again.
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