news

I think it might be worth it to read Geopolitical Economy by Radhika Desai. I think she foresaw with this book what is happening here and now. I haven't finished it yet, and I'm not sure its a revolutionary text in the same way State and Revolution was. However, the argument she makes is that capital is still very much a nationalist project, and it has not transitioned beyond national interests and ties. I think the reality is, there hasn't truly been an alignment of global capital, in the sense that, there are many equally powerful capitalist entities that have transcended the influence of the state through collaborative means. "Global Capital" as we understand it is by and large American Financial Capital, and most of their assets are tied to the success and failings of America. The reason for this is there hasn't been a transition away from the dollar as the dominate global currency. Maybe if they keep pushing hard on crypto and bitcoin, and most of the corporate entities performed their transactions through that system instead of a state-owned system, then we might see a true "Global Capital". However, as it stands, a national currency as the backbone of "global capital" naturally ties its value to the state, and the state has all the cards when it comes to that currencies value. To maintain its value, it has to maintain its usefulness on the world stage, and to maintain its usefulness it has to squash competition, which Desai argues creates uneven and combined development of those states, pushing them through rapid and compressed development and eventually becoming contenders to the leading state. This eventually will bring about a multipolar world, as states are more or less on equal footing. The emergence of BRICS also signals a lack of true "global capital", in the sense that it is an effort to bolster national development, something Global Capital would see as irrelevant, since they should exist above any one state's influence.