9 ms·

I made a few tangential points regard globalization in a similar discussion. Basically wondering how globalization which was a very right wing corporatist idea

by rdtsc 10y ago

I made a few tangential points regard globalization in a similar discussion. Basically wondering how globalization which was a very right wing corporatist idea (Sanders calls it a Koch brothers proposal here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vf-k6qOfXz0 basically) became a favorite of the new left. And conversely anti-globalization was a top issue for the left along with TPP, NAFTA and other such stuff. I think it is rather ironic that the new "left" love them globalization all of the sudden, even when their younger brothers were tear-gassed protesting it, just a decade ago or so protesting against it. (More discussion here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682260 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13682260 along with a promising book on the subject, 'The Technological Society' by Jacques Ellul suggested by Drumlin. Still waiting for it to come from Amazon)

devoply 10y ago
Think of the poor and how much they have been helped by the globalization of the world is how they were won over. See how many people we've lifted out of poverty because of globalization.
- Oxitendwe 10y ago
  That's not really something people typically argue against when criticizing globalization - the issue is that these people are often helped at the expense of citizens of other countries that pursue a globalist agenda, and that people believe their government has a duty to protect the interests of its citizens above all others.
  - devoply 10y ago
    The countries don't pursue globalist agendas. Their corporations do. And they have benefited immensely because of that. The poor being helped is just a side-effect of that. In the end they care about profits, the side effects are irrelevant to them. It's just a peripheral side effect used for its marketing value, to turn the attention away from self-interest of the people negatively impacted.
clavalle 10y ago
I see globalization less as an agenda and more of an inevitability as we become more and more connected. The best thing we can do is make sure that whatever power structures we guide into place during that process serve the largest coalition possible.
concinds 10y ago
Disagree completely. I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles, who were heavily pro-globalization. The reason in a nutshell is "freedom". When your friends growing up come from all over the world, and you understand that with anti-migrant policies, you wouldn't have ever met any of them, you'll be pro-freedom of movement. If you grew up in Alabama, and still live close to where you were born, you won't be. Maybe none of this is in the interest of factory workers, but that's not what the left is about anymore, and it's not the left's fault either. The world moved on. You will never get the "old left" back. Weakening the influence of corporations will still be popular on the left, but reversing globalization and freedom of movement will hopefully never be a left-wing position again. The factory-worker type who complains that his job moved to China, while he only buys the cheapest Chinese crap at Walmart, is not the future of the left.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  > The factory-worker type who complains that his job moved to China, while he only buys the cheapest Chinese crap at Walmart, is not the future of the left. What about the poor Mexican farmer who couldn't make a profit because NAFTA stripped away tariffs of import and he now has little chance except to pay a smuggler to take him up north so he can wash toilets or pick cotton away from his family. Is he the future of the left. > I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles, who were heavily pro-globalization. I think it is fair to say that "elite" left-wing circles are probably also not the future of the left either. > The reason in a nutshell is "freedom". When were elite's freedom ever restricted? Even in the most restrictive dictatorships elites can fly and spend the weekend in New York shopping. > you'll be pro-freedom of movement. That's exactly what the left has been fighting for. The PR twisting of the concept of "freedom". Elites and corporations always talk "but don't you want to be friends with everyone and hold hands and trade". What they mean is they want to be able to move without restriction and tariffs and exploit labor or resources in any country they want. The poor and disenfranchised are precisely even more restricted in the new "globalization". The more companies and elites more around, the more inequality they create and the more restriction, passport controls, visas and the poor get.
  - 10y ago
Analemma_ 10y ago
No offense, but I think you're swallowing a lot of right-wing lies about what "the left" believes. "The left" is as opposed to the plutocratic tendencies of globalization as it always has been. Believing in freedom of movement, and that immigration does not lead to the downfall of a society, does not mean having to believe in, for instance, corporate sovereignty.
- rdtsc 10y ago
  I am quoting Sanders here not some fringe anarchist nobody has heard of. Chomsky also wrote about it. > Believing in freedom of movement, I believe in equality of freedom. So far I haven't seen a lot of poor and disenfranchised being able to move freely. Are you saying Facebook here represents or is a proxy for them and so when it talks about globalization it means anything other than getting more clicks and users who log into it. > but I think you're swallowing a lot of right-wing lies about what "the left" believes. I don't listen to much to right wing lies but I don't listen to left wing ones as well. I am happy to not be in either camp. I've always been an outsider. Quite used to it. But here I am trying to even see what left even means anymore. I just made a point that in what "left" means has changed, and I think it is an interesting change.
  - kmonsen 10y ago
    Chomsky and Sanders are very different from the democratic party. The democratic party is to the left of the GOP but to the right of anything else, including the American people. Elections have become an us vs them thing focusing on a few issues that will divide us, but mostly the population are significantly to the left of both parties in the US on actual issues. If you described something exactly like Obamacare, but called it Trumpcare it would be super popular with GOP voters and maybe hated by democrat voters.
    - rdtsc 10y ago
      Alright good point. Heck Sanders and Chomsky might be centrists in Europe as well probably. > The democratic party is to the left of the GOP but to the right of anything else, I think at least in the PR domain they don't shy away from calling themselves "the left". Which I think it is interesting. And the left (if there is one, and that's separate point to talk) hasn't exactly disavowed or pushed against it too much. > but called it Trumpcare it would be super popular with GOP voters and maybe hated by democrat voters. The fascinating thing is Trump has picked up "the concern for the workers", NAFTA and TPP as central talking points and ran with it. That was Democrat's bread-and-butter in the past. I am not sure if it was is sincere or pure opportunism (he did pull out of TPP, so that's something...). But I can't deny that it was a good strategy for him. Even more interesting to me is to see that as soon as he did those things, the new "left" almost immediately reverted to talk about "how TPP is great" and "NAFTA is a good thing" and workers are just idiots brainwashed by fake news and such. I was watching Reddit's /r/politics and after TPP pull-out and there were posts explicitly saying "we have to support TPP because Trump is against". There is something fascinating there, I think. Remembering the DNC primaries with TPP signs everywhere. And then few months later "what do you mean, we love the TPP".
meheleventyone 10y ago
Ideas very similar to globalization have a long history in socialist thought. L'Internationale is a left-wing anthem for a reason. See also the conservative conspiracy theories about the New World Order. I'm not sure it's even true that the left wing anti-globalization movement is actually smaller rather than better dealt with at events like the G20 and/or perhaps less reported on.
- Pokepokalypse 10y ago
  >Ideas very similar to globalization have a long history in socialist thought. Yes, it's important to note that Hitler started out as a Socialist, at the dawn of Socialist thought. He differed with them on the idea of globalization and multiculturalism. As it turns out that's a pretty huge ideological split, and in Hitler's case, it became a violent one. He basically said: "screw you guys, I'm going to start my own Socialist Party - with blackjack, and hookers. And racial purity, global war, and genocide." That's why you get rightwingers accusing the Left of being "Nazis" because the "Z" in the NAZI acronym stood for the German word for Socialism. As the Nazis began to gain ground in Germany; they used propaganda tools to tell Germans what they wanted to hear: "you're a 'master race', and all others are inferior", and "We'll get rid of these foreign influences, and degenerates of other races, who are the cause of all your problems!" At the time, REAL socialists ran counter protests, and would even riot at Nazi meetings and demonstrations, and there was a lot of civil violence over this issue. (Which is today, romanticized heavily by the far-left, anarchist, and 'antifa' movements). In their minds, WWII was a large-scale playing out of this conflict, between Soviet Socialists, and German Nazis, who lost. The result was the bombing of much of Europe (and especially Berlin) to Rubble. Millions dead. The rise of America's free-enterprise system was seen as a repudiation of these two extremes of thought (Socialism vs Nazism). And became an extreme viewpoint all it's own. It became what the Socialists, and Nazis were rebelling against, and now we're repeating the whole thing all over again. I think anyone who thinks they are "left wing" AND anti-globalist, is ignorant of history, and quite confused. Part of that is due to the anti-globalist propaganda, which mostly uses the argument: "these foreigners are causing all your problems - let's build a wall and get rid of them". (can't really argue for 'racial superiority'; because it's so easily disproven - very nearly nobody who thinks they're "Aryan" can actually trace their ancestry back long enough to make a case that they're not a mongrel just like the rest of us - the only way they can accept this ideology is to be in denial).
myth_drannon 10y ago
It's on amazon for 12$ paperback
- rdtsc 10y ago
  Thanks. Ordered it already. It is coming tomorrow.

by rdtsc 10y ago

devoply 10y ago

Think of the poor and how much they have been helped by the globalization of the world is how they were won over. See how many people we've lifted out of poverty because of globalization.

Oxitendwe 10y ago
That's not really something people typically argue against when criticizing globalization - the issue is that these people are often helped at the expense of citizens of other countries that pursue a globalist agenda, and that people believe their government has a duty to protect the interests of its citizens above all others.
- devoply 10y ago
  The countries don't pursue globalist agendas. Their corporations do. And they have benefited immensely because of that. The poor being helped is just a side-effect of that. In the end they care about profits, the side effects are irrelevant to them. It's just a peripheral side effect used for its marketing value, to turn the attention away from self-interest of the people negatively impacted.

clavalle 10y ago

I see globalization less as an agenda and more of an inevitability as we become more and more connected. The best thing we can do is make sure that whatever power structures we guide into place during that process serve the largest coalition possible.

concinds 10y ago

Disagree completely. I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles, who were heavily pro-globalization. The reason in a nutshell is "freedom". When your friends growing up come from all over the world, and you understand that with anti-migrant policies, you wouldn't have ever met any of them, you'll be pro-freedom of movement. If you grew up in Alabama, and still live close to where you were born, you won't be. Maybe none of this is in the interest of factory workers, but that's not what the left is about anymore, and it's not the left's fault either. The world moved on. You will never get the "old left" back. Weakening the influence of corporations will still be popular on the left, but reversing globalization and freedom of movement will hopefully never be a left-wing position again. The factory-worker type who complains that his job moved to China, while he only buys the cheapest Chinese crap at Walmart, is not the future of the left.

rdtsc 10y ago
> The factory-worker type who complains that his job moved to China, while he only buys the cheapest Chinese crap at Walmart, is not the future of the left. What about the poor Mexican farmer who couldn't make a profit because NAFTA stripped away tariffs of import and he now has little chance except to pay a smuggler to take him up north so he can wash toilets or pick cotton away from his family. Is he the future of the left. > I grew up in pretty "elite", mostly left-wing circles, who were heavily pro-globalization. I think it is fair to say that "elite" left-wing circles are probably also not the future of the left either. > The reason in a nutshell is "freedom". When were elite's freedom ever restricted? Even in the most restrictive dictatorships elites can fly and spend the weekend in New York shopping. > you'll be pro-freedom of movement. That's exactly what the left has been fighting for. The PR twisting of the concept of "freedom". Elites and corporations always talk "but don't you want to be friends with everyone and hold hands and trade". What they mean is they want to be able to move without restriction and tariffs and exploit labor or resources in any country they want. The poor and disenfranchised are precisely even more restricted in the new "globalization". The more companies and elites more around, the more inequality they create and the more restriction, passport controls, visas and the poor get.
- 10y ago

Analemma_ 10y ago

No offense, but I think you're swallowing a lot of right-wing lies about what "the left" believes. "The left" is as opposed to the plutocratic tendencies of globalization as it always has been. Believing in freedom of movement, and that immigration does not lead to the downfall of a society, does not mean having to believe in, for instance, corporate sovereignty.

rdtsc 10y ago
I am quoting Sanders here not some fringe anarchist nobody has heard of. Chomsky also wrote about it. > Believing in freedom of movement, I believe in equality of freedom. So far I haven't seen a lot of poor and disenfranchised being able to move freely. Are you saying Facebook here represents or is a proxy for them and so when it talks about globalization it means anything other than getting more clicks and users who log into it. > but I think you're swallowing a lot of right-wing lies about what "the left" believes. I don't listen to much to right wing lies but I don't listen to left wing ones as well. I am happy to not be in either camp. I've always been an outsider. Quite used to it. But here I am trying to even see what left even means anymore. I just made a point that in what "left" means has changed, and I think it is an interesting change.
- kmonsen 10y ago
  Chomsky and Sanders are very different from the democratic party. The democratic party is to the left of the GOP but to the right of anything else, including the American people. Elections have become an us vs them thing focusing on a few issues that will divide us, but mostly the population are significantly to the left of both parties in the US on actual issues. If you described something exactly like Obamacare, but called it Trumpcare it would be super popular with GOP voters and maybe hated by democrat voters.
  - rdtsc 10y ago
    Alright good point. Heck Sanders and Chomsky might be centrists in Europe as well probably. > The democratic party is to the left of the GOP but to the right of anything else, I think at least in the PR domain they don't shy away from calling themselves "the left". Which I think it is interesting. And the left (if there is one, and that's separate point to talk) hasn't exactly disavowed or pushed against it too much. > but called it Trumpcare it would be super popular with GOP voters and maybe hated by democrat voters. The fascinating thing is Trump has picked up "the concern for the workers", NAFTA and TPP as central talking points and ran with it. That was Democrat's bread-and-butter in the past. I am not sure if it was is sincere or pure opportunism (he did pull out of TPP, so that's something...). But I can't deny that it was a good strategy for him. Even more interesting to me is to see that as soon as he did those things, the new "left" almost immediately reverted to talk about "how TPP is great" and "NAFTA is a good thing" and workers are just idiots brainwashed by fake news and such. I was watching Reddit's /r/politics and after TPP pull-out and there were posts explicitly saying "we have to support TPP because Trump is against". There is something fascinating there, I think. Remembering the DNC primaries with TPP signs everywhere. And then few months later "what do you mean, we love the TPP".

meheleventyone 10y ago

Ideas very similar to globalization have a long history in socialist thought. L'Internationale is a left-wing anthem for a reason. See also the conservative conspiracy theories about the New World Order. I'm not sure it's even true that the left wing anti-globalization movement is actually smaller rather than better dealt with at events like the G20 and/or perhaps less reported on.

Pokepokalypse 10y ago
>Ideas very similar to globalization have a long history in socialist thought. Yes, it's important to note that Hitler started out as a Socialist, at the dawn of Socialist thought. He differed with them on the idea of globalization and multiculturalism. As it turns out that's a pretty huge ideological split, and in Hitler's case, it became a violent one. He basically said: "screw you guys, I'm going to start my own Socialist Party - with blackjack, and hookers. And racial purity, global war, and genocide." That's why you get rightwingers accusing the Left of being "Nazis" because the "Z" in the NAZI acronym stood for the German word for Socialism. As the Nazis began to gain ground in Germany; they used propaganda tools to tell Germans what they wanted to hear: "you're a 'master race', and all others are inferior", and "We'll get rid of these foreign influences, and degenerates of other races, who are the cause of all your problems!" At the time, REAL socialists ran counter protests, and would even riot at Nazi meetings and demonstrations, and there was a lot of civil violence over this issue. (Which is today, romanticized heavily by the far-left, anarchist, and 'antifa' movements). In their minds, WWII was a large-scale playing out of this conflict, between Soviet Socialists, and German Nazis, who lost. The result was the bombing of much of Europe (and especially Berlin) to Rubble. Millions dead. The rise of America's free-enterprise system was seen as a repudiation of these two extremes of thought (Socialism vs Nazism). And became an extreme viewpoint all it's own. It became what the Socialists, and Nazis were rebelling against, and now we're repeating the whole thing all over again. I think anyone who thinks they are "left wing" AND anti-globalist, is ignorant of history, and quite confused. Part of that is due to the anti-globalist propaganda, which mostly uses the argument: "these foreigners are causing all your problems - let's build a wall and get rid of them". (can't really argue for 'racial superiority'; because it's so easily disproven - very nearly nobody who thinks they're "Aryan" can actually trace their ancestry back long enough to make a case that they're not a mongrel just like the rest of us - the only way they can accept this ideology is to be in denial).

myth_drannon 10y ago

It's on amazon for 12$ paperback

rdtsc 10y ago
Thanks. Ordered it already. It is coming tomorrow.