Right, but real Marxism doesn't have a need for currency. I never said pseudo-Communist Russia's model was the epitome of financial success, in fact I think the Russian people were abused under the totalitarian regimes, I simply said that Marx's statements that the capitalist fiat currency model benefits those who are already rich (ie. Those 'bankers who line their pockets', as you say) is true.
When we create a purchase-power based inherently on a bond of trust between bank and government, wherein dictated value is tied against no tangible asset - gold, platinum, work-value, the cost of reasonable living, a human life - then we have a system whereby purchase power itself is controlled by those who print money.
Fiat money is always going to be debt money because of how the fiat system works.
Look at the English government and their meddling in the post-Lincoln federal reserve. Lincoln essentially wanted a standard based on tangible assets wherein money was unable to be printed by a private institution. After the greenbacks, the British bankers forced the American government into signing legislations that undid Lincoln's work and fiat money became the dominant standard.
Private banks effectively make up the Federal reserve system's many arms, so in a roundabout manner of speaking, the Fed is a private and independent power. The Fed is like a US clearinghouse, like the Bank of England is the British clearinghouse. Of course nobody is said to publicly own either, but they might as well. The Federal reserve exists outside of government, so it's an independent financial entity, but it's also required to remit it's profits after a 6% dividend to private shareholders, to Congressional power.
Essentially the bank makes its own banking decisions, outside of ''government'', but still under the guidance of Congress and their policies. It may not itself be privately owned, but those who control the directions it takes are indeed a small group of people.
It is not a 'government central bank' in the most genuine sense, but neither is it entirely privately owned, if only because to be truly privately owned their must be an 'owner'. It is still overseen by Congress though, so they have the power to essentially dictate and shape value itself. Quantitative easing, for example, destabilizes currency value and does more to make matters worse. Destabilizing currency means that its value can fluctuate considerably, which makes for situations where when its value falls low people struggle to pay debts. Effectively, the banks are given this nice big grant - foreclosures, seizures and whatever other acquisitions of bankrupt citizens' assets help them 'line their coffers'.
Fiat money has always been about the banks and those who own or invest in them. It doesn't benefit Joe Bloggs at all. We're now going towards this quite unnervingly Libertarian financial structure which is ironically being backed by the very government who are supposed to instate banking codes and measures that are financially beneficial to the average citizen.
And perhaps for all my rambling here, it might benifit us to genuinely look at the capitalist system not solely from a detached, logical perspective but also from a perspective which accounts for the nature of man - his greed. Capitalism compounds and exacerbates that greed, so while those in high positions live in a world where the system benefits them, those at the bottom are the servants to that system, and the divide of power only increases with time.
Last edited: