Rampant Capitalism Emboldens Global Basket of Deplorables to Hate Each Other.All around the world, nationalists are gaining ground. Why
( Read more... )
In response to the previous commenter - globalization in the abstract is most certainly NOT an instrument of capitalism. Perhaps it is if you see it through a neoliberal lens, but in my opinion the utopian dream - whether socialist or capitalist - is that all borders are gone, all wars are over and all tariffs and subsidies and all this jingoistic nonsense is erased. Some day I hope that humans will celebrate their cultural differences while simultaneously supporting one another's fundamental rights to health and freedom of movement and expression. I thought all of us felt this way.
I have always seen globalization (even capitalist globalization) as a greater force for good than nationalism (in particular the recent rise of nationalist socialism). The idea of reinforcing borders and economic separation between different cultures is sickening to me - this is why Brexit hit me so very hard, and why the xenophobic and racist rhetoric coming from the Trump administration revolts me. This barbaric concept that people who were born on one side of a river, or across an arbitrary line in the sand, or with some kind of skin color, or religion, or language, implicitly deserve more than others... it bothers me a lot.
Progressives who see these inequities but understand we are not yet living in a utopia have historically supported affirmative action exactly to combat the injustice. With that in mind, it is chilling to me that there seems to be a bipartisan agreement between the contemporary hard-left and political right wing that such inequities should not only be accepted but legislated, when it comes to human beings living overseas.
Capitalism is undoubtedly shitty for the poor, and I despise the greed and selfishness of the middle-class "haves" who will throw the "have-nots" under the bus just so they can climb the ladder to be even more shameless consumers... But lifting up the "have-not" citizenry of one country at the expense of immigrants or all citizens of other countries is not something I am down with. As a life-long hobo/working immigrant, this shit drives me nuts.
I do understand, of course, that it's a step by step thing. Tear down the 1%. For sure, redistribute the wealth. But don't promote some kind of philosophy that ignores that fact that we (as citizens of developed nations) are the 1% of the entire rest of the world. It's hypocritical for us to stand around pretending we are so hard-done-by when our lifestyles are built on the backs of long-suffering citizens of developing nations. For many of them, globalization is a chance to raise their own standard of living from a level of poverty the vast majority of "working class" in developed nations cannot even imagine.
So when people sell protectionism as a solution for domestic poverty, I cannot even with the eyeroll. Knocking the rich in our countries down a few notches should not mean selling out every other country. Because, someday, shouldn't we all be the same country? Shouldn't there be no countries? I'm an old-fashioned western idealist, so I see globalization as the path towards that. Maybe authentic global socialism is another way. But nationalism, even if it's socialist, is definitely not.
Yes, maybe in theory free trade would be great for everyone and would relieve economic inequality, but in practice these trade deals cripple the ability of governments to create regulations, especially with respect to the environment and on labor.
This is a very complex and nuanced topic, so inevitably blanket statements are going to come across sounding a bit tone-deaf. I am also not a macro-economist, so it's hard for me to discuss the details with confidence. What I will say is that I definitely understand the arguments of those on the left who are scared of trade deals.
Here in Europe there is a strong leftist movement against TTIP for exactly the reasons lollycunt mentioned below - it risks inflicting America's woefully inadequate environmental and labor laws upon those of a far more progressive EU. This is a problem, for sure. But I would rather that the left try to amend trade deals to ensure we get the best environmental and labor protections worldwide than echoing the nationalist/populist position that we pull out of them altogether.
With regard to Brazil, I admit complete ignorance about the country and the South American region in general. I have never traveled there, and have done very little reading about it. I really appreciate the posts of international people on this forum because it exposes me to viewpoints I might not otherwise encounter, so thanks for sharing yours.
Outside of Brazil, though, this article specifically does show data that indicates belief in globalization as a force for good is higher in Asian developing nations and newly industrialized countries than in "traditional" developed nations. I think you would find very few people from the poorest countries of the world who would say that immigration and finance laws allowing their family members to work in more developed countries and send money home are a bad thing. Or that the idea of developed countries scrapping agricultural subsidies and tariffs would hurt and not help their domestic farmers. Or that foreign companies opening plants or offices in their countries is somehow retarding development.
Of course, like I said at the start, this is a super nuanced issue. For example, in parts of sub-Saharan Africa there is an ongoing debate about the value of cash crops vs subsistence farming. Although cash crops can greatly improve the lives of farmers living in extreme poverty, trading on the global market means they risk losing it all at the whims of people on the other side of the world. So I agree with you that it's not realistic to imply that all economic globalization legislation is implicitly successful at lifting people out of poverty. There is lots we can improve on. But I do believe that globalization in general - cultural and political as well as economic - has been a net good for humankind, and I don't think that's a view exclusively held by privileged "First World" folks like me.
It's hypocritical for us to stand around pretending we are so hard-done-by when our lifestyles are built on the backs of long-suffering citizens of developing nations.
In response to the previous commenter - globalization in the abstract is most certainly NOT an instrument of capitalism. Perhaps it is if you see it through a neoliberal lens, but in my opinion the utopian dream - whether socialist or capitalist - is that all borders are gone, all wars are over and all tariffs and subsidies and all this jingoistic nonsense is erased. Some day I hope that humans will celebrate their cultural differences while simultaneously supporting one another's fundamental rights to health and freedom of movement and expression. I thought all of us felt this way.
I have always seen globalization (even capitalist globalization) as a greater force for good than nationalism (in particular the recent rise of nationalist socialism). The idea of reinforcing borders and economic separation between different cultures is sickening to me - this is why Brexit hit me so very hard, and why the xenophobic and racist rhetoric coming from the Trump administration revolts me. This barbaric concept that people who were born on one side of a river, or across an arbitrary line in the sand, or with some kind of skin color, or religion, or language, implicitly deserve more than others... it bothers me a lot.
Progressives who see these inequities but understand we are not yet living in a utopia have historically supported affirmative action exactly to combat the injustice. With that in mind, it is chilling to me that there seems to be a bipartisan agreement between the contemporary hard-left and political right wing that such inequities should not only be accepted but legislated, when it comes to human beings living overseas.
Capitalism is undoubtedly shitty for the poor, and I despise the greed and selfishness of the middle-class "haves" who will throw the "have-nots" under the bus just so they can climb the ladder to be even more shameless consumers... But lifting up the "have-not" citizenry of one country at the expense of immigrants or all citizens of other countries is not something I am down with. As a life-long hobo/working immigrant, this shit drives me nuts.
I do understand, of course, that it's a step by step thing. Tear down the 1%. For sure, redistribute the wealth. But don't promote some kind of philosophy that ignores that fact that we (as citizens of developed nations) are the 1% of the entire rest of the world. It's hypocritical for us to stand around pretending we are so hard-done-by when our lifestyles are built on the backs of long-suffering citizens of developing nations. For many of them, globalization is a chance to raise their own standard of living from a level of poverty the vast majority of "working class" in developed nations cannot even imagine.
So when people sell protectionism as a solution for domestic poverty, I cannot even with the eyeroll. Knocking the rich in our countries down a few notches should not mean selling out every other country. Because, someday, shouldn't we all be the same country? Shouldn't there be no countries? I'm an old-fashioned western idealist, so I see globalization as the path towards that. Maybe authentic global socialism is another way. But nationalism, even if it's socialist, is definitely not.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Here in Europe there is a strong leftist movement against TTIP for exactly the reasons lollycunt mentioned below - it risks inflicting America's woefully inadequate environmental and labor laws upon those of a far more progressive EU. This is a problem, for sure. But I would rather that the left try to amend trade deals to ensure we get the best environmental and labor protections worldwide than echoing the nationalist/populist position that we pull out of them altogether.
With regard to Brazil, I admit complete ignorance about the country and the South American region in general. I have never traveled there, and have done very little reading about it. I really appreciate the posts of international people on this forum because it exposes me to viewpoints I might not otherwise encounter, so thanks for sharing yours.
Outside of Brazil, though, this article specifically does show data that indicates belief in globalization as a force for good is higher in Asian developing nations and newly industrialized countries than in "traditional" developed nations. I think you would find very few people from the poorest countries of the world who would say that immigration and finance laws allowing their family members to work in more developed countries and send money home are a bad thing. Or that the idea of developed countries scrapping agricultural subsidies and tariffs would hurt and not help their domestic farmers. Or that foreign companies opening plants or offices in their countries is somehow retarding development.
Of course, like I said at the start, this is a super nuanced issue. For example, in parts of sub-Saharan Africa there is an ongoing debate about the value of cash crops vs subsistence farming. Although cash crops can greatly improve the lives of farmers living in extreme poverty, trading on the global market means they risk losing it all at the whims of people on the other side of the world. So I agree with you that it's not realistic to imply that all economic globalization legislation is implicitly successful at lifting people out of poverty. There is lots we can improve on. But I do believe that globalization in general - cultural and political as well as economic - has been a net good for humankind, and I don't think that's a view exclusively held by privileged "First World" folks like me.
Reply
I 100% agree.
Reply
Leave a comment