The Economist Shocked that Globalized Neoliberalism has Created Global Misery.

[evildevil]

Rampant Capitalism Emboldens Global Basket of Deplorables to Hate Each Other.All around the world, nationalists are gaining ground. Why

Comments

[eldvno]

Thank you for this post, OP!

I am glad this focused on non-Western countries as well. I feel too much focus on nationalism is on EU/US and very little regard is put to countries like India and China. But nationalism is on the rise everywhere. Armenia, Philippines, Brazil, Japan. It is going to be a very difficult force to combat, and I think more people need to be worried. Except for a few places (Iceland, the Faroe Islands) very few places can have a rise in nationalism without a lot of people getting hurt.

My qualm with these pieces is that they often suggest that anti-globalization is linked nationalism, which I don't think is fair. I am against globalization because is is an instrument of capitalism, not because it blurs the lines between people. I know The Economist is very much free-market, pro-globalization, but it annoys me when all there pieces end along the lines of: "if we just learn to love globalization all of our problems will be solved!" because I don't think that is true at all.

[eldvno]

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that. I agree that Brazil falls under the broad "west" category, but I think a lot of time South America gets forgotten, including with this topic. I think critique of rising nationalism usually targets the western countries which fit the general "white + west" profile, without consideration of this happening pretty much anywhere. So not only is it being misinterpreted as a problem only the "west" has, but only the western countries which fit with the blonde hair/blue eye profile. Not sure if I'm making sense, but I agree with your sentiments.

[amw]

This is a great post

[lollycunt]

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.

[amw]

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

[lightframes]

Affirmative action of the sort practised in America gives even the richer members of the racial groups it favours advantages that are unavailable to the poorer members of unfavoured groups.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of affirmative action in the U.S. Or maybe a misunderstanding of the word "advantages," I can't tell which.

The only reason affirmative action exists is because of institutional racism and sexism that none of us can escape. So if people don't like affirmative action, maybe let's take care of that institutional racism and sexism first.

[mimblexwimble]

It misunderstands both, I think. And ignores intersectionality in favor of suggesting economic inequality trumps all other inequalities.

[lightframes]

Some of these articles are going along fine and then say something like this. I remember one posted during the primaries said people voted for Obama because of "pigment not policy" and I thought "well that was fun and alienating"