|
It's absolutely true that globalisation in general has weakened the capacity of leftist politics on a national level as well as strengthening the hand of the xenophobic far right in developed countries, but the progressive response to that is to globalise leftism and not to try to hold back the tide by resuscitating mercantilism, throwing up protectionist barriers etc. Leftism in one nation makes as much sense as anti-racism in one bantustan.
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
SickZip posted:I have no idea where you get the idea that neoliberalism is against as open borders as they can get away with. It takes some serious denial to not recognize that its one of their core policies. As rudatron and I pointed out there is a difference between migrant labor and citizenship. Neoliberalism wants the former (there are even papers by neoliberal economists arguing that more illegal immigration is preferable to legal immigration) Today the institutions of capital have become international, and soon they will operate entirely above the level of the old nation-states. In order to struggle against it, labor needs to work on an global level as well. Solidarity beyond borders is not a new concept, it's why the anthem of the left is called the "Internationale".
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Neoliberals want free movement for capital, not for labor.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:If immigration leads to the ruling class crafting a narrative of "foreigners are stealing welfare!" because they want to roll back social policies, the correct response is not to fall back to a closed-borders stance. The correct response is for the working class of the first world to realize that they are complicit in a system of pitting the workers of different nations in competition with each other for the sole benefit of capital, and against their own class interests. The solution is, and has always been, international solidarity. By closing borders and keeping all your social reforms for yourself (gently caress you got mine) you are sabotaging your class interests in the hope of becoming the labor aristocracy of an imperialist nation. This is one of those statements that really shows why the left is so consistently betrayed by the left. If there are no interests but class interests, if you're going to deny all other forms of social organization and identity, then why should you be surprised at the tendency of the leadership to take your votes and tell you to go gently caress yourself? How successful have international leftist movements been compared to ones of a national character? International solidarity isn't even convincing from autistically economic grounds. Your very term of labor aristocrat is about the fact that my class interests are different from a pakistani brick layer.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
SickZip posted:How successful have international leftist movements been compared to ones of a national character? "Socialism with National characteristics" 
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:19
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:If immigration leads to the ruling class crafting a narrative of "foreigners are stealing welfare!" because they want to roll back social policies, the correct response is not to fall back to a closed-borders stance. The correct response is for the working class of the first world to realize that they are complicit in a system of pitting the workers of different nations in competition with each other for the sole benefit of capital, and against their own class interests. The solution is, and has always been, international solidarity. By closing borders and keeping all your social reforms for yourself (gently caress you got mine) you are sabotaging your class interests in the hope of becoming the labor aristocracy of an imperialist nation. How exactly is this supposed to work in a world with such massive gulfs in wage levels? Clearly workers in the third world cannot be paid the same wages as first world workers right now, and allowing third world workers into the first world will demonstrably decrease the bargaining power of first world workers. Ironically, it is the very outsourcing that broke the first-world labor movement that has allowed the increases in wages and living standards in much of the developing world. If they had held out for the same wages the factories might never have relocated, and many countries would have been much slower to industrialize. In turn, the development of third-world countries is pushing up wages, making them less attractive a outsourcing destinations and returning some power to first-world workers, which companies are attempting to stifle by allowing more immigration. International solidarity will only work if literally everyone is on board, until then capital will seek the cheapest place to do business, and will only be content to remain where they are until the costs of production have been broadly equalized.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:"Socialism with National characteristics" Also the USSR, China, Vietnam...
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:22
|
|
|
SickZip posted:Also the USSR, China, Vietnam... Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
I don't know if you realize this, but capital is now an international class that acts in it's global class interest. Chinese Capital has more in common with American Capital than it does with Chinese Labor. While Capital will compete among itself, it will always close rank against a threat from Labor that might undermine it. International labor solidarity isn't some luxury that should be abandoned because it's not in the interest of white workers or whatever (puttying aside the incredible immorality and cynical evil behind admitting that you're okay screwing 'pakistani brick-layers' for profit), it is a necessity in a globalized world. rudatron fucked around with this message at 04:30 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:26
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:"Socialism with National characteristics" Except for the part where Nazis were never socialists and the only people who insist they were are the fascists, or whatever you call dumb right-wing American shitheads.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't know if you realize this, but capital is now an international class that acts in it's global class interest. Chinese Capital has more in common with American Capital than it does with Chinese Labor. While Capital will compete among itself, it will always close rank against a threat from Labor that might undermine it. I agree with your characterization of international capital, but how would international labor solidarity work in practice? If a country refuses to implement labor protections and therefore becomes an attractive destination for capital, it has essentially become the international equivalent of a scab. What can international solidarity between some number of countries do in response?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Except for the part where Nazis were never socialists and the only people who insist they were are the fascists, or whatever you call dumb right-wing American shitheads. Kind of like how people in this thread insist that socialism+nationalism is socialism even though it's not SickZip posted:Your very term of labor aristocrat is about the fact that my class interests are different from a pakistani brick layer. And the interests of an engineer are different from those of a clerk which are different from those of a miner. Also the interests of a man with a job is different from those of a stay-at-home mom. The interests of a white person are different from those of a black person. Why even pretend to be on the left if you don't understand what class is? Clearly the solution is to have a highly hierarchical system where nobody acts in solidarity with anyone below them lest their own privilege be taken away.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:43
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:I agree with your characterization of international capital, but how would international labor solidarity work in practice? If a country refuses to implement labor protections and therefore becomes an attractive destination for capital, it has essentially become the international equivalent of a scab. What can international solidarity between some number of countries do in response? Scabs are not scabs if they are denied membership to the union in the first place. If you're part of a union that keeps people out because they threaten the privilege of existing union members, then you don't get to complain when these people that you won't stand in solidarity with start to undercut you. EDIT: Also any union that works like this understands nothing about the concept of collective bargaining, just like any nation-state with a closed-borders policy cannot be socialist. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 04:55 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:49
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't know if you realize this, but capital is now an international class that acts in it's global class interest. Chinese Capital has more in common with American Capital than it does with Chinese Labor. While Capital will compete among itself, it will always close rank against a threat from Labor that might undermine it. Consider how the left already opposes internationalism with terms such as "cultural imperialism," which is essentially a nationalist opposition to global capitalism. If you allow global capital to do as it wishes, then the proletariat is doomed. It cannot hope to compete against capital in a neoliberal world. Nationalism is one of the best tools the left can embrace to strategically break capital apart and build serious political opposition to it. Nationalism can unite the people in a populist movement against international capital. You can support the workers of other nations as well. Any disruption of the current neoliberal hegemony should be supported by the left because it provides opportunities for revolution.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Nationalism is an unscientific and unnecessarily divisive force that is well past its expiration date. It is the antithesis of the left, which stresses equality and universal brotherhood. I get that you, as a libertarian, are trolling very hard here, but to troll well you have to kind of make sense. You can't just throw things at the wall and see what sticks.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Scabs are not scabs if they are denied membership to the union in the first place. If you're part of a union that keeps people out because they threaten the privilege of existing union members, then you don't get to complain when these people that you won't stand in solidarity with start to undercut you. I'm not talking about people being denied membership, I'm talking about the leadership of countries that deliberately enact policies to make themselves more attractive to capital, such as restricting worker's rights. What can international solidarity do about this? What is international solidarity in the first place? A global alliance of unions? An alliance of countries controlled by labor parties? We're talking about international relations and you're using language like we're talking about a single factory. Concrete example: An American company shuts down a factory in America and moves it to Vietnam. American and Vietnamese capital are happy, Vietnamese labor is happy because the jobs pay better than working the fields, and American labor is unhappy because they have been fired. What does international solidarity do about this situation?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:Concrete example: An American company shuts down a factory in America and moves it to Vietnam. American and Vietnamese capital are happy, Vietnamese labor is happy because the jobs pay better than working the fields, and American labor is unhappy because they have been fired. What does international solidarity do about this situation? Objects strenuously.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:I'm not talking about people being denied membership, I'm talking about the leadership of countries that deliberately enact policies to make themselves more attractive to capital, such as restricting worker's rights. What can international solidarity do about this? What is international solidarity in the first place? A global alliance of unions? An alliance of countries controlled by labor parties? We're talking about international relations and you're using language like we're talking about a single factory. You mention Viet Nam restricting worker's rights, but then mention that Vietnamese workers have their conditions improve. Which one is it? A socialist America in this case would have an open-borders policy towards Vietnam, welcoming any refugees seeking to flee the actions of their pro-capital government. EDIT: hopefully it would also seize the assets of the company and keep the american factory running under worker management instead of letting it go abandoned. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 05:22 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:16
|
|
|
They have their pay improved, not conditions.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:25
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:You mention Viet Nam restricting worker's rights, but then mention that Vietnamese workers have their conditions improve. Which one is it? The Vietnamese government restricts many labor rights, such as the rights to organize. This makes it an attractive destination for capital, which provides jobs that are superior to subsistence agriculture. In this way the conditions of Vietnamese workers are improved while the conditions for American workers worsen, because jobs have been lost. Your socialist America has done nothing to solve the problem. Vietnamese workers won't have much incentive to flee, as globalization is improving their lives. Meanwhile any Vietnamese that do flee will arrive in an America with no jobs to give them, as they are likely without skills and education and will most likely be forced to compete for the most menial labor by accepting lower wages. If enough Vietnamese arrive to drive down American wages significantly then American capital might keep the factory in America and hire said cheap labor, but this will hardly endear them to American labor. Again, what is international solidarity? How will it prevent capital from moving internationally, and thereby pitting different groups of labor against each other? You have done nothing to answer my questions.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
When talking about socialism and immigration, you should remember that socialist countries have historically not been open to outsiders, and in fact wall in the country and shoot people trying to leave. Both people emigrating and people immigrating were associated with the external enemies trying to destroy the country, which is pretty close to the fascist viewpoint.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
EA Sports posted:They have their pay improved, not conditions. Are they better off or not? Also anyone who thinks that people willingly move from an agrarian lifestyle to factory work because it pays better does not understand how industrialization works under capitalism.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:30
|
|
|
Yes, until the machine malfunctions and kills them. Yes, until they develop an inoperable tumor after a decade of work because of chemical exposure. the cost comes from somewhere.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:EDIT: hopefully it would also seize the assets of the company and keep the american factory running under worker management instead of letting it go abandoned. In response to your edit: Assuming that the company left the machinery behind and didn't ship it to Vietnam, or that they were prevented from doing so, by what legal means would the assets be seized? And if they were seized, how would the worker-owned factory's goods compete with lower cost goods from the new factory in Vietnam? And this is all assuming that the US company's goods are not protected by patents or trademarks (unless you want to do away with those systems also), and if they did set up their own brand that they would be able to win market share from the original company. Do you propose trade restrictions? Or are you going straight for full communism?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Are they better off or not? They are definitely better off. Going from being a non-unionized peasant to a non-unionized factory worker is almost always an improvement in both pay and conditions. If you think that the people in developing countries taking these factory jobs are doing so involuntarily then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The migration from rural agrarian jobs to urban industrialized ones has been almost entirely voluntary, because pay and conditions and lifestyle are all better. But back to my question: Vietnamese labor is better off, American labor is worse off, what does international solidarity do about this? And what is international solidarity?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Nationalism is an unscientific and unnecessarily divisive force that is well past its expiration date. It is the antithesis of the left, which stresses equality and universal brotherhood. No, the antithesis of the left is capitalism. And you assume that because every human is in some way equal, and that we are in a universal brotherhood, that workers do not want their nations and cultures preserved. This is wrong! What workers want is an end to capitalism and a socialist government that benefits their country. Obviously it would be best if every nation was this way, and in that way it is internationalist, but this is not the same as a single global state, which is what the neoliberals are trying to create. The left's strategy of trying to undermine national identity has been a disaster. It is nothing but an extreme reaction to imperialist jingoism. There is nothing scientific about it. Your lack of patriotism, your lack of respect for people's loyalty to their people and country has been your downfall. It is a total victory for capitalism, and for the right wing groups which are the only ones willing to take advantage of patriotic sentiment, the only ones willing to claim popular sovereignty and do something about the neoliberal order everyone dislikes. My intention is obviously to promote nationalism amongst the left. I think it's bizarre and short-sighted that you react to the European elections, a major blow against the status quo in a neoliberal system that seemed unbreakable, with dismay and hysterics, rather than hope for real change.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:46
|
|
|
EA Sports posted:Yes, until the machine malfunctions and kills them. Yes, until they develop an inoperable tumor after a decade of work because of chemical exposure. the cost comes from somewhere. Subsistence farming is hardly a low-injury occupation. Global industrialization has brought with it a tremendous improvement in living standards, because there aren't nearly enough deaths from accidents and pollution to outweigh the reduction of deaths from malnutrition and preventable diseases that greater wealth brings you.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Kyrie eleison posted:Consider how the left already opposes internationalism with terms such as "cultural imperialism," which is essentially a nationalist opposition to global capitalism. You know for once you're talking sense. Seriously its true, if you want to destroy neoliberalism you have to burst it open on all fronts. Also nationalism is "unscientific" So is internationalism, so is progressivism, so is plenty of other things people stand behind. Doesn't mean it isn't useful at times.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Look, all this huge ideological strides you are talking about here is drat near irrelevant. I would classify myself as social democrat and yes even a socialist in that sense, I admit that really isn't far from social liberalism. But that ain't so terrible either. Variation of welfare, tax and regulations might seem trite and not very exiting in socialist theory( at most I feel the biggest thing I want to see is sovereign nationalized operations in private markets(and I hope we don't let nationalized mean something its not)) A part from the economic, farm subsidies, privatize poo poo for the hack of it, I trust most liberal parties have a decent respect for the liberal values we all share(even with the socialists). The poo poo that goes down in Hungary, Gert Wilders, UKIP/EDL/BNP, all that poo poo, is detrimental to most socialist/liberal parties alike. We have these cunts thats populistic and nationalistic on the extreme right, we should NOT lament that there is not an extreme left equivalent.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
If neoliberalism outsourcing from the developed world to the developing causes the former to fall and the latter to rise, don't they eventually meet in the middle? Hasn't that always been the case, that at some point the revolutionary potential of capitalism will be exhausted, after all markets are developed, and internationalism becomes the only way for working class interest to proceed?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
No because capitalism isn't separate from the physical realities of the world which include its technology. very soon machines will be able to peform work at a greater value than a worker would even for simply enough food to eat.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
thekeeshman posted:In response to your edit: Assuming that the company left the machinery behind and didn't ship it to Vietnam, or that they were prevented from doing so, by what legal means would the assets be seized? And if they were seized, how would the worker-owned factory's goods compete with lower cost goods from the new factory in Vietnam? Seizure of assets to prevent capital flight has precedent even in non-socialist countries. You can't transition to a socialist economy without changing a bunch of laws, though, if that's what you're asking (?) Rent-seeking from "intellectual property" is probably one of the most ridiculous aberrations of capitalism, and countries which have industrialized by rejecting such systems (China, the US) have benefited immensely from it, so I'm not sure why anyone would want to keep patents and trademarks. One of the goals of socialism is to actually take back the means of production from the capitalists, in case this isn't clear. How would closing borders to immigration prevent Viet-Nam from undercutting american factories with cheap exports? thekeeshman posted:They are definitely better off. thekeeshman posted:If you think that the people in developing countries taking these factory jobs are doing so involuntarily then you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. The migration from rural agrarian jobs to urban industrialized ones has been almost entirely voluntary, because pay and conditions and lifestyle are all better. In the third world people "voluntarily" decide to get a factory job because capitalism consolidates the land of their country into the hands of a small number of large landowning corporations who put it to use growing cash crops for exports, while food production is undercut by cheap imports from industrialized countries where it is subsidized, thus forcing local peasants to sell their land to the multinationals and become wage laborers. I hope we're beyond the point where anyone has to explain why neocolonialism is not in fact, civilization bringing a better life to the savages. thekeeshman posted:But back to my question: Vietnamese labor is better off, American labor is worse off, what does international solidarity do about this? And what is international solidarity? International solidarity means recognizing that Viet Nam becoming better off is a good thing and that it will benefit Americans and everyone else in the long term if we're aiming to defeat capitalism. It means recognizing that socialism is doomed to fail without a world revolution and it means working towards that end. This has always been a core part of socialism. Bob le Moche fucked around with this message at 08:01 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 07:26
|
|
|
rudatron posted:I don't know if you realize this, but capital is now an international class that acts in it's global class interest. Chinese Capital has more in common with American Capital than it does with Chinese Labor. While Capital will compete among itself, it will always close rank against a threat from Labor that might undermine it. No poo poo that capital is international. Capital is, and always will be, better at moving around national boundaries than labor. Money and goods don't speak any language, they have no family, they have no beliefs, borders mean nothing to them because nothing means anything to them. The capitalist class can move from country to country with immense ease since they have the funds to move with little hardship. Labor is inflexible and human in ways that capital isn't. This is good and fine. The vision of labor as international as capital is a horror show once you strip away the religious rhetoric surrounding it. Its the reduction of man into a fully atomized commodity.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 07:30
|
|
|
Mantis42 posted:If neoliberalism outsourcing from the developed world to the developing causes the former to fall and the latter to rise, don't they eventually meet in the middle? Hasn't that always been the case, that at some point the revolutionary potential of capitalism will be exhausted, after all markets are developed, and internationalism becomes the only way for working class interest to proceed? Because there aren't just two places. The pattern is that as standards rise in one area, capital moves to another. Which country is being exploited for cheap labor and resources shifts over time. Meanwhile the gap in the relative power of the classes grows and environmental collapse grows closer. Theres an endpoint to all this and its favelas, refugee camps, and gated communities.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 07:39
|
|
|
Every single progressive leftist policy you can think of is going to be defeated if it's only national in scope. Your country has minimum wage, unions, human rights, taxes on capital that fund socialized medecine or unemployment benefits? --> capital is going to get the hell out of there and move to somewhere more "business-friendly". Seriously, it's not hard to understand, and it's what's been happening to social democracies all over in the last decades. If you're able to have those things under international capitalism it's only because you happen to be the "core" in an imperialist system of exploitation that feeds on war and is destined to collapse. Your nation isn't going to defeat global capitalism alone, and if it tries without an international movement it's going to be crushed like the Paris commune. Turning your back on the other workers of the world is not a winning strategy.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
SickZip posted:No poo poo that capital is international. Capital is, and always will be, better at moving around national boundaries than labor. Money and goods don't speak any language, they have no family, they have no beliefs, borders mean nothing to them because nothing means anything to them. The capitalist class can move from country to country with immense ease since they have the funds to move with little hardship. Labor is inflexible and human in ways that capital isn't. This is good and fine. The vision of labor as international as capital is a horror show once you strip away the religious rhetoric surrounding it. Its the reduction of man into a fully atomized commodity.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 08:02
|
|
|
Bob le Moche posted:Every single progressive leftist policy you can think of is going to be defeated if it's only national in scope. It's lunacy to expect worldwide adoption of the beliefs and practices of rich, western, liberal democracies. Hell, look at how well the EU is using policies as a weapon. No country is going to hurt themselves in the short-run to protect American jobs.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 08:47
|
|
|
Wrong, Capitalism is not the antithesis of the left. There are progressive elements within capitalism, as even Marx himself admitted, but it is undermined by its internal contradictions (see: the first few chapters of the Manifesto). The answer is not to react, to return once again to parochial relations among the people of the world, but to revolt, to move forward through it. There is no going back, you can't undo what we know now: that people are less diverse than a sheep or a single species of bird, that cultural superiority is and always has been a lie and that states and people tend to act in their own interest. They are here to stay. The reassertion of nationalism is the reassertion of lies over truth, it is the refusal to accept the world as it is and to move on from there. That's not a populist sentiment, it's senseless reaction without thought or control. Ultimately, the nationalist will fail in their goals, they will be swept away. The issue is that the chance for something better is gone.
rudatron fucked around with this message at 09:09 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
on the left posted:It's lunacy to expect worldwide adoption of the beliefs and practices of rich, western, liberal democracies. Hell, look at how well the EU is using policies as a weapon. No country is going to hurt themselves in the short-run to protect American jobs. Since when is socialism "the belief and practices of rich western liberal democracies"? If anything that's where socialism is the weakest and has been beaten into utter submission. So far the west has been the dominant force in the world AGAINST socialism. Is this some kind of the new variant of the racist "democracy is good in theory but those primitive developing countries people just aren't ready for it" narrative or am I completely misunderstanding your point?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 18:59 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Wrong, Capitalism is not the antithesis of the left. There are progressive elements within capitalism, as even Marx himself admitted, but it is undermined by its internal contradictions (see: the first few chapters of the Manifesto). The answer is not to react, to return once again to parochial relations among the people of the world, but to revolt, to move forward through it. There is no going back, you can't undo what we know now: that people are less diverse than a sheep or a single species of bird, that cultural superiority is and always has been a lie and that states and people tend to act in their own interest. They are here to stay. The reassertion of nationalism is the reassertion of lies over truth, it is the refusal to accept the world as it is and to move on from there. That's not a populist sentiment, it's senseless reaction without thought or control. Ultimately, the nationalist will fail in their goals, they will be swept away. The issue is that the chance for something better is gone. I'm speaking of the UK, but this is a much more general problem, and it's a process that's occurring in many countries. I mean simply to say that you're not going to get anywhere by telling people that they "refuse to accept the world as it is." Because they'll respond: you're absolutely right / we don't accept this. "We have more to lose than just our chains," etc. BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 09:42 on May 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 28, 2014 09:40
|
|
